5.30A ES Clarification Note - Update June 2015... · 1.1 Initial Clarification Note (submitted to PINS January 2015) 1.1.1 This document (ES Volume 5.30A) is an update to the initial

July 2015Application Reference EN020001

5.30A.1Do

cum

ent

Hinkley Point C Connection Project

Environmental Statement Consolidated Errata and Changes

Regulation 5(2)(q) of the Infrastructure Planning(Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure)Regulations 2009


JULY 2015

VOLUME 5.30A.1 – ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT CONSOLIDATED ERRATA AND CHANGES DOCUMENT


2

Hinkley Point C Connection Project – Volume 5.30A.1

3

Document Control

Document Properties

Organisation National Grid

Author Chris Slater, TEP

Approved By Bobby Clayton, TEP

Title Environmental Statement Consolidated Errata and Changes Document

Document Reference Volume 5.30A

Version History

Date Version Status Description/Changes

19/01/15 A Superseded New document for submission to PINS

01/07/2015 B Live Updated document for submission to PINS

4


5

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Purpose of this Document ........................................................................................................ 7

ANNEXES (VOLUME 5.30A.2)

Annex A: Replacement Proposed Development Plans Figure 3.1.18

Annex B: Replacement Construction Plans Figure 3.3.45 – 3.3.46

Annex C: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Visual Receptor B1.M15 (Acacia Farm)

Annex D: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Visual Receptor D1.H58 (Moorland Park Traveller Site)

Annex E: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Visual Receptor G1.H73 (St Anthony’s Park Traveller Site)

Annex F: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Severn Beach Railway Line

Annex G: Visual Assessment, Photographs Sheets and Significance of Effects during Operation Plan for Severn Beach Railway Line

ANNEXES (VOLUME 5.30A.3)

Annex H: Replacement Heritage Asset Plans

Annex I: Replacement Hinkley Point C Connection Route FRA Appendix I (National FRA Flood Modelling Extents)

Annex J: Proposed Development (Revised) Construction Compounds

Comment [BC1]: Plans provided to be updated for Deadline 7 to reflect minor amnedmnets to construction layout arising from ISH actions.

Comment [BC2]: Plans provided to be updated for Deadline 7 to reflect minor amnedmnets to construction layout arising from ISH actions.

Hinkley Point C Connection Project - Volume 5.30A.1

6

Hinkley Point C Connection Project – Volume 5.30A

7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Initial Clarification Note (submitted to PINS January 2015)

1.1.1 This document (ES Volume 5.30A) is an update to the initial Clarification Note submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in January 2015. The initial Clarification Note was prepared as an accompaniment to the Environmental Statement (ES), the ES Supporting Documents (ES Volume 5.1 – 5.27 where relevant) which were submitted as part of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application in May 2014 and to the ES Sensitivity Test (ES Volume 5.29) and Ecology Survey Update Report (ES Volume 5.28) submitted to PINS in October 2014.

1.1.2 The initial Clarification Note was prepared as a result of discussions between National Grid and the relevant stakeholders as part of the ongoing process of discussing and agreeing Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) where amendments and statements of clarification to the ES have been acknowledged and agreed in principle. The initial Clarification Note also provided details of other minor amendments or general points of clarification that have been addressed after being identified by National Grid.

1.2 This update to the Clarification Note (submitted to PINS June 2015)

1.2.1 During the examination, further points of clarification have arisen through tasks such as (but not limited to) the Written Questions, Written Representations and the Issue Specific Hearings as follows:

ES errors and omissions have been identified. These are provided in Table 1.2 below.

National Grid has been asked to provide further details, interpretation or clarifications to ES assessments previously provided to PINS. These are described in brief in Table 1.2 below with a cross reference to the submission document where relevant.

1.2.2 As a result of this update to the initial Clarification Note (described above), the document title has been amended to ‘Environmental Statement Consolidated Errata and Changes Document’.

Timeline of Further ES Submissions to PINS

1.2.3 Since the submission of the ES to PINS in May 2014, National Grid has prepared updates to some of the ES documents and also prepared new ES documents to be read in tandem with the initial and updated ES. These documents have been submitted to PINS throughout the examination process and are detailed at Table 1.1 below. Where these new ES documents would result in amendments to the original ES (for example ES Volume 5.28 (ES Ecology Survey Update Report) would result in an update to the ecological baseline data in ES Volume 5.8.1), these are set out in Table 1.2 below.


8

Table 1.1 Schedule of Additional ES Documents submitted to PINS during Examination

ID ES Reference

Document Relationship to Initial ES

Status

October 2014

1 5.28 ES Ecology Survey Update Report

Supplementary Active

2 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test Supplementary Active

January 2015

3 5.22.4 ES Transport Assessment Addendum


4 5.23.5.1A ES Flood Risk Assessment Hinkley Point C Connection Route

Replacement Active

5 5.23.5.2A ES Flood Risk Assessment Hinkley Point C Connection Route - Appendices

Replacement Active

6 5.26.1A ES Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Replacement Superseded

7 5.26.2A ES Draft CEMP Appendix 1 – Outline Waste Management Plan


8 5.26.3A ES Draft CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy


9 5.26.4A ES Draft CEMP Appendix 3 – Outline Written Scheme of Investigation


10 5.26.5A ES Draft CEMP Appendix 4 – Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan


11 5.26.6A ES Draft CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan


12 5.26.7 ES Draft CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan

Supplementary Superseded


9

ID ES Reference


Status

February 2015

13 5.20.1A ES Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

Replacement Active

14 5.20.2A ES Habitats Regulations Assessment Report - Appendices


15 5.22.1A ES Transport Assessment (update to Section 12)


16 5.23.5.3 ES Update Table for Flood Risk Assessment Route


17 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment


18 5.32 ES Overarching Mitigation Annex

Supplementary Superseded

March 2015

19 8.7.1 New and Updated Photomontages – Explanatory Note


20 8.7.2 New and Updated Photomontages – Appendix


21 8.7.3.1 - 8.7.3.7

New Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 6)


22 8.7.4.1 – 8.7.4.4

Updated Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 4)


04 June 2015

23 5.20.2B ES Habitats Regulations Assessment Report - Appendices

Replacement Active

24 5.26.1B ES CEMP Replacement Superseded

25 5.26.2B ES CEMP Appendix 1 – Waste Management Plan


26 5.26.3B ES CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy



10

ID ES Reference


Status

27 5.26.4B ES CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation


28 5.26.5B ES CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan


29 5.26.6B ES CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan


30 5.26.7A ES CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan


31 5.32A ES Overarching Mitigation Annex


32 5.33.1 Bird Mortality Monitoring and Thresholds South of Mark


33 5.34.1 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth


35 5.34.3 ES Amended Design Drawing showing Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth


18 June 2015

36 5.21.1A ES Arboricultural Impact Assessment


37 5.21.2A ES Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Appendices


38 5.21.3A ES Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Figures


39 5.25.1A ES Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme (OSPES)


40 5.25.2A ES OSPES - Appendices Replacement Superseded

41 5.25.3A ES OSPES - Figures Replacement Superseded


11

ID ES Reference


Status

13 July 2015

42 5.21.1B ES Arboricultural Impact Assessment

Replacement Active

43 5.21.2B ES Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Appendices

Replacement Active

44 5.21.3B ES Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Figures

Replacement Active

45 5.25.1B ES OSPES Replacement Active

46 5.25.2B ES OSPES - Appendices Replacement Active

47 5.25.3B ES OSPES - Figures Replacement Active

48 5.26.1C ES CEMP Replacement Active

49 5.26.2C ES CEMP Appendix 1 – Waste Management Plan

Replacement Active

50 5.26.3C ES CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy

Replacement Active

51 5.26.4C ES CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation

Replacement Active

52 5.26.5C ES CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan

Replacement Active

53 5.26.6C ES CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan

Replacement Active

54 5.26.7B ES CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan

Replacement Active

55 5.32B ES Overarching Mitigation Annex

Replacement Active


12


13

Table 1.2 Schedule of Errata and Changes

ES Ref. Amendment Required Reason for Amendment

INITIAL ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT

ES VOLUME 5.1 INTRODUCTION

Further Amendments and Clarifications

No further amendments required to ES Volume 5.1.

ES VOLUME 5.2 PROJECT NEED AND ALTERNATIVES

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.2 Project Need and Alternatives

ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test. o ES Volume 5.2.1, section 2.3 (Need Case) should be read as amended (the need case for the Proposed Development is delayed by two years)

by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 2 (Project Need and Alternatives). o ES Volume 5.2.1, section 2.3 (Need Case) should be read as amended (the need case for the Proposed Development is delayed by two years)

by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 2 (Project Need and Alternatives).



ES VOLUME 5.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.3 Project Description

ES Volume 5.26.2C CEMP Appendix 1 - Waste Management Plan.

ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test. o ES Volume 5.3.1, section 3.3, Table 3.3 and ES Volume 5.3.2, Appendix 3B (Construction Programme) should be read as amended (revised

construction programme and changes in the revised construction programme duration) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 3 (Project Description).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.3.1, section 3.7 (Detailed Description of the Proposed Development) should be read as amended (realignment of proposed 400kV

overhead line between pylons LD120 and LD122) by ES Volume 5.31, section 1.2 (Proposed Realignment). o ES Volume 5.3.3.1, Figure 3.1.18 (The Proposed Development) and ES Volume 5.3.3.2, Figures 3.3.45 – 3.3.46 (Construction Plans) should

be read as amended by ES Volume 5.31, section 1.2 (Proposed Realignment). These replacement plans are provided at Annex A and Annex


14


B respectively of this document.

ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1, ES Volume 5.3.1, section

3.3 (Summary of the Proposed Development), ES Volume 5.3.1, section 3.4 (Pylon Details) and ES Volume 5.3.1, section 3.7 (Detailed Description of the Proposed Development) should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.34.1, section 1.2 (Proposed Development).


ES Volume 5.3.1, Table 3.2

ES Volume 5.3.1, Table 3.2 (Temporary Construction Compounds) to be replaced with ES Volume 5.26.1C, Annex A (Construction Compounds Schedule).

Clarification in response to second round written questions 2.9.27 (Volume 8.1.3)

ES Volume 5.3.1, paragraph 3.7.55

ES Volume 5.3.1, paragraph 3.7.55 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Two construction compounds (Caswell Hill Compound and Caswell Hill Clevedon Road Compound) are proposed immediately adjacent the proposed 400kV overhead line 132kV underground cable route at the southern and northern extents of the route respectively. Whitehouse Lane Compound is close to the proposed 400kV overhead line in the central and northern extents of Section E; these compounds would enable the construction of the W Route underground cable.”

General clarification



“The proposed substation would use indoor and outdoor 400kV GIS and Air Insulated Switchgear (AIS). The GIS substation equipment would be insulated using sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). The building would be extended by approximately 24m. The operational compound boundary also would be extended on the eastern side by 10m x 20m (200m

2) 12.3m x 20.3m (250m

2) and in the south eastern corner by 15m x 20m

(300m2) 12.5m x 50.4m (630m

2). The maximum height of the outdoor electrical equipment would be 13m.”


ES VOLUME 5.4 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT



ES VOLUME 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPROACH AND METHOD



15



ES VOLUME 5.6 LANDSCAPE

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.6 Landscape

ES Volume 5.21.1B Arboricultural Impact Assessment

ES Volume 5.21.2B Arboricultural Impact Assessment – Appendices.

ES Volume 5.21.3B Arboricultural Impact Assessment – Figures.

ES Volume 5.25.1B Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme.

ES Volume 5.25.2B Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme - Appendices.

ES Volume 5.25.3B Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme - Figures.

ES Volume 5.26.1C CEMP. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.6.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.1C.

ES Volume 5.26.6C CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.6.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.6C.

ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test. o ES Volume 5.6.1 should be read as amended (to all individual sections of the topic chapter including but not limited to baseline environment,

prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 6 (Landscape).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.6.1, sections 6.4 and 6.5 should be read as amended (to baseline environment and potential effects sub-sections) by ES Volume

5.31, Chapter 2 (Landscape and Views).

ES Volume 5.32B Overarching Mitigation Annex. o Construction, operation and decommissioning mitigation measures and enhancement measures as set out in the ES chapters and CEMP

documents are summarised in ES Volume 5.32B.

ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1, ES Volume 5.6.1, section

6.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.34.1, Chapter 2 (Landscape and Views).




“Verified photomontages have been produced for viewpoints agreed with the Landscape and Views Thematic Group (Ref. 6.2) referred to in Volume 5.7.1. Photomontage viewpoints selected throughout Sections A to H are identified at Volume 5.18.1, Figures 18.1.1 - 18.1.9. Verified photomontages have been produced to illustrate the proposed 400kV overhead line, CSE compounds and Sandford Substation in the landscape and in selected views, and are included at Volume 5.18.2, Figures 18.2.1 - 18.2.113 and at

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities;

Clarification in response to first round written questions 8.16, 9.23, 9.24, 9.26 and


16


Volume 5.18.3, Figures 18.3.1 - 18.3.5. New and updated photomontages are located in Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4. Supplementary photomontage information is provided in the following locations:

Volume 8.2.3, Appendix 9.23d.1.1: schedule clarifying tree removal within each photomontage view;

Volume 8.2.3 - 8.2.24, Appendix 9.23d.2.1 to 9.23d.2.22: photomontage figures illustrating tree removal in the view; and

Volume 8.18.2.2, Appendix 2.9.25: T-pylon colour study photomontage figures”

9.27 (Volume 8.1.2); and



ES Volume 5.6.1, Table 6.4 to be amended as follows:

The correct responses to the representation included in row 6 to read:

“The overall effect of the operation of the Proposed Development on landscape character has been assessed as being beneficial. The landscape assessment at Volume 6.5.1, section 6.5 assesses the adverse indirect effects on the Mendip Hills AONB landscape that are predicted as a result of the Proposed Development in the setting of this AONB (in Sections B and D). The overall effect on the Mendip Hills AONB landscape has been assessed as being moderate beneficial as defined in Volume 5.6.1, Table 6.9. National Grid can guarantee the re-instatement of land, the implementation of in-situ replacement planting and management of this planting for 5 years via a requirement in the DCO.”

The correct response to the representation included in row 7 to read:

“This has been addressed in the final ES at Volume 5.6.1, section 6.5.”

The correct response to the representation included in row 8 to read:

“Clearer justification for this judgment has been provided in the final ES at Volume 5.6.1, section 6.5.”




Insert additional bullet point to list of published national and local landscape character assessments reviewed:

“Portbury Parish Council’s ‘The Landscape Character of Portbury and Surrounding Area’ (July 2013);”

Clarification provided in response to first round written question 12.2 (Volume 8.1.2)


ES Volume 5.6.1, paragraph 6.5.6 to be amended as follows (add /remove):

“Verified photomontages are provided at Volume 5.18, 8.7.1 to 8.7.4, 8.2.3 to 8.2.24 and 8.18.2.2. Volume 5.7, section 7.5 provides further information regarding the production of a digital model and verified photomontages for the Proposed Development.”


Clarification in response to first round written questions 8.16, 9.23, 9.24, 9.26 and 9.27 (Volume 8.1.2); and


17




ES Volume 5.6.1, Table 6.26 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

Table 6.26 Summary of the Magnitude and Significance of Landscape Effects in Section F during Construction

Component of the Proposed Development

Sensitivity of the Landscape to the Proposed Development

Magnitude of Effect on the Landscape

Significance of Effect during Construction

Proposed 400kV overhead line; proposed 132kV underground cables; removal of the W Route across Clapton Moor and Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve; removal of the F Route, G Route; and part of the BW Route at Portbury Wharf Nature Reserve

Medium Moderate adverse (with a low adverse effect across the underground cables swathe)

Moderate adverse overall (with a neutral minor adverse effect across the underground cables swathe)

Removal of the BW Route and installation of 132kV underground cable

Low Low adverse Neutral Minor adverse



ES Volume 5.6.1, paragraph 6.5.408 to be amended as follows (add/remove) in line with National Grid’s response to first round written question 9.33 part b:

“LoD and the Order Limits have been considered when assessing the predicted significance of effect of the Proposed Development on visual landscape character and features/amenity. The LoD of the Proposed Development and the components with the potential to be sited anywhere within the Order Limits would not result in a variation to the significance of effect on landscape character/visual receptors identified above within each Section of the Proposed Development. This is because the maximum distance or measurement of variation within which these works would be constructed is not considered great enough to alter the significance of landscape/visual effects. When considering micro-siting of pylons within the LoD, landscape and visual effects would be taken into consideration as well as physical constraints.”

Clarification in response to first round written question 9.33 (Volume 8.1.2).


18



ES Volume 5.6.1, paragraph 6.7.21 to be amended as follows (add)/remove) in line with National Grid’s response to first round written question 9.12 part b, 9.14, 9.21 and 2.9.22:

“Mitigation proposals would be implemented in accordance with the ‘Landscape Specification for Site-Specific Mitigation’ at Volume 5.7.2, Appendix 7K, which would be delivered via Requirements 9 and 11 set out in the DCO. The Landscape Specification has been produced using National Building Specification Landscape (NBS Landscape) (Ref 6.22) and describes the materials, standards and workmanship expected during construction, implementation and maintenance of site-specific hard and soft landscape mitigation works. This includes cultivation, importing of materials and other operations to ensure plant establishment.

Maintenance would commence following Practical Completion of the works at each site. Maintenance undertaken in the first five years would include replacing removed, dead, damaged, diseased planting; maintaining a weed free environment around plants; re-mulching as appropriate; watering as appropriate; replacing stakes and ties as appropriate; and removing any protective guards or fencing for planting at the end of the establishment period. National Grid would monitor and maintain embedded landscape mitigation at site-specific infrastructure for the lifetime of each project component.”

Clarification in response to first round written question 9.12b), 9.14, 9.21 and 2.9.22 (Volume 8.1.2).

ES VOLUME 5.7 VISUAL EFFECTS

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.7 Visual Effects

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex C of this document: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Visual Receptor B1.M15 (Acacia Farm).

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex D of this document: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Visual Receptor D1.H58 (Moorland Park Traveller Site).

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex E of this document: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Visual Receptor G1.H73 (St Anthony’s Park Traveller Site).

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex F of this document: Significance of Effect during Construction and Operation for Severn Beach Railway Line.

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex G of this document: Visual Assessment, Photographs Sheets and Significance of Effects during Operation Plan for Severn Beach Railway Line.

ES Volume 5.21.1B Arboricultural Impact Assessment






ES Volume 5.26.1C CEMP. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.7 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.1C.


19


ES Volume 5.26.6C CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.7 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.6C.

ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test. o ES Volume 5.7 should be read as amended (to all individual sections of the topic chapter including but not limited to baseline environment,

prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 7 (Visual Effects).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.7, sections 7.4 and 7.5 should be read as amended (to baseline environment and potential effects sub-sections) by ES Volume

5.31, Chapter 2 (Landscape and Views).



ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1, ES Volume 5.7, section 7.5

should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.34.1, Chapter 2 (Landscape and Views).

ES Volume 8.7.1 New and Updated Photomontages – Explanatory Note.

ES Volume 8.7.2 New and Updated Photomontages – Appendix.

ES Volume 8.7.3 New Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 6).

ES Volume 8.7.4 Updated Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 4). o ES Volumes 8.7.1 – 8.7.4 to be used in tandem with ES Volume 5.18 (the Explanatory Note at ES Volume 8.7.1 sets out which previously

submitted photomontages have been superseded).


ES Volume 5.7.1.1, paragraph 7.3.52

ES Volume 5.7.1.1, paragraph 7.3.52 to be amended as follows (add /remove):

“For this assessment Susceptibility to Change has generally been assigned to receptors as shown in Table 7.5. There are a few different instances where a ‘high and/or medium’ susceptibility to change judgement is recorded for a visual receptor entry in the Visual Assessment Tables at Volume 5.7.2.1 and 5.7.2.2. Apart from rural lanes and tourist routes (see Table 7.5 below), in some places a judgement of high and medium susceptibility has been recorded where residents in properties would have lower storey and upper storey views. In other instances, the visual receptor entry is for a representative viewpoint between 1 and 3km (for example receptor references A2.26 and A2.27), where the assessment is representing the view experienced by a number of visual receptors of varying susceptibility.”

Clarification provided in response to second round written question 2.9.10 (Volume 8.18.1)



Insert the following at the end of Paragraph 7.3.80:

“The Visual Assessment Tables also provide the nearest distance measures (in metres) from the receptor to

Clarification provided in response to second round written question 2.9.9 (Volume 8.18.1)


20


the Limits of Deviation (LoD) for the Proposed Development. Distance measures have been calculated using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) software to provide an indication to the reader of the proximity of the visual receptor to the closest part of the LoD for the Proposed Development. In most cases this measurement relates to the curtilage of the property, however this has required a degree of interpretation from base mapping. Where the curtilage has proved too difficult to define, the measurement is to the building. The visual assessment and judgements were undertaken on site. The measurements were added to the assessment table as part of the subsequent data mapping exercise. The distance measures presented for each receptor are for information and do not affect the assessment.”


ES Volume 5.7.1.1, paragraph 7.4.206 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“In Section G the path follows the same route as the Severn Way LDR running south between 1 and 3km from the proposed 400kV overhead line in Section G, along the coast between Severn Beach and Chittening Industrial Estate. The LDRs then turns inland southeast and pass within 1km of the proposed 400kV overhead line along Poplar Way West and Lawrence Weston Road to Lawrence Weston. The Severn Way and Summits of Somerset and Avon LDRs then continue southwest to the River Avon. At this point the Summits of Somerset and Avon crosses the river and runs between 1 and 3km from the LoD for the proposed 400kV overhead line, following the southern bank east into Bristol city centre along the same route as the River Avon Trail. See paragraphs 7.1.14 7.4.237 and 7.1.15 7.4.239 respectively for a description of the baseline views experienced”.




“Figures relating to visual effects are in Volume 5.7.2 and verified photomontages are provided at Volume 5.18.1, and 5.18.2 and 8.7.1 to 8.7.4.

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities; response to Examining Authority’s first round written questions 8.16, 9.23, 9.24, 9.26 and 9.27 (Volume 8.1.2); and response to Examining Authority’s second round written question 2.9.25 (Volume 8.18.1).



“Verified photomontages have been produced in accordance with guidance contained in the LI Advice Note 01/11 Photography and Photomontage in Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Ref. 7.20) and Figures are illustrated at Volumes 5.18.1, and 5.18.2 and 8.7.1 to 8.7.4. The production of photomontages had regard to the guidance provided in ‘Visual Representations of Windfarms: Good Practice Guidance’

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities; response to Examining Authority’s first round written questions 8.16, 9.23,


21


prepared for Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) March 2006, which the LI Advice Note 01/11 (Ref. 7.20) strongly advises (LI) members to follow where applicable in preference to any other guidance or methodology.

9.24, 9.26 and 9.27 (Volume 8.1.2); and response to Examining Authority’s second round written question 2.9.25 (Volume 8.18.1).



“Verified photomontage viewpoints produced are representative of views in the area. The location of these viewpoints and the timing of photographic surveys were discussed with the Landscape and Views Thematic Group between January and May 2013. Photomontage Figures 18.2.1 to 18.2.113 and Figures 18.3.1 to 18.3.5 are included at Volume 5.18.2. The locations where verified photomontages have been produced to support this visual assessment, and to support the landscape assessment in Volume 5.6.1, are identified in Volume 5.18.1, Figures 18.1.1 to 18.1.9. New and updated photomontages are located in Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4. Supplementary photomontage information is provided in the following locations:


Volume 8.2.3- 8.2.24, Appendix 9.23d.2.1 to 9.23d.2.22: photomontage figures illustrating tree removal in the view; and

Volume 8.18.2.2, Appendix 2.9.25: T-pylon colour study photomontage figures”


ES Volume 5.7.1.1, verified photomontage 7.19

ES Volume 5.7.1.1, verified photomontage 7.19 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Verified Photomontage 7.19 (Viewpoint VPC15): Anticipated view south from Receptor C1.F1 PRoW AX 21/2 west of Loxton (accessed via North Lodge property off Hillview Road, Loxton or from Shiplate Road), of the South of Mendip Hills CSE compound and the 400kV overhead line during operation (image for illustration purposes only, for correct perspective viewing see Volume 5.18.2, Figure 18.2.45)”

General Clarification in response to Examining Authority’s first round written question 9.23 (Volume 8.1.2).


22


ES Volume 5.7.1.1, Table 7.11

ES Volume 5.7.1.1, Table 7.11 to be amended as follows (add/remove ):

Figure Name Figure Number

Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4

Additional Verified Photomontage Viewpoint locations

8.7.3.1 to 8.7.3.11

New photomontages 8.7.3.12 to 8.7.3.33

Updated photomontages 8.7.4.1 to 8.7.4.14

Volume 8.2.3 to 8.2.24, Appendix 9.23d.2.1 to 9.23d.2.22

Photomontage figures illustrating tree removal in the view

9.23d.2.1.1 to 9.23d.2.22.5

Volume 8.18.2.2, Appendix 2.9.25

T-pylon colour study photomontage figures 2.9.25.2.1 to 2.9.25.2.1


ES Volume 5.7.1.1, Inset 7.64

ES Volume 5.7.1.1, Inset 7.64, the fourth bullet point to be amended as follows (add/remove):

receptors B1.H144 B1.H145 to B1.H147: properties on Kennel Lane (Inset 7.64); and




“The overall temporary effect of the construction operation of the Proposed Development in views from the West Somerset Coast Path (where this public route runs within 3km of the LoD for the proposed 400kV overhead lines) is assessed in the latter part of this section.”



ES Volume 5.7.1.2, paragraph 7.5.856 to be amended as follows (add/remove) in line with National Grid’s response to first round written question 9.33 part b:

“LoD and the Order Limits have been considered when assessing the predicted significance of effect of the Proposed Development on visual landscape character and features/amenity. The LoD of the Proposed Development and the components with the potential to be sited anywhere within the Order Limits would not result in a variation to the significance of effect on landscape character/visual receptors identified above

Clarification in response to first round written question 9.33 (Volume 8.1.2).


23


within each Section of the Proposed Development. This is because the maximum distance or measurement of variation within which these works would be constructed is not considered great enough to alter the significance of landscape/visual effects. When considering micro-siting of pylons within the LoD, landscape and visual effects would be taken into consideration as well as physical constraints.”


ES Volume 5.7.1.2, paragraph 7.7.19 to be amended as follows (add/remove) in line with National Grid’s response to first round written question 9.12 part b, 9.14, 9.21 and 2.9.22:

“Mitigation proposals would be implemented in accordance with the ‘Landscape Specification for Site-Specific Mitigation’ at Volume 5.7.2, Appendix 7K, which would be delivered via Requirements 9 and 11 set out in the DCO. The Landscape Specification has been produced using National Building Specification Landscape (NBS Landscape) (Ref 6.22) and describes the materials, standards and workmanship expected during construction, implementation and maintenance of site-specific hard and soft landscape mitigation works. This includes cultivation, importing of materials and other operations to ensure plant establishment.

Maintenance would commence following Practical Completion of the works at each site. Maintenance undertaken in the first five years would include replacing removed, dead, damaged, diseased planting; maintaining a weed free environment around plants; re-mulching as appropriate; watering as appropriate; replacing stakes and ties as appropriate; and removing any protective guards or fencing for planting at the end of the establishment period. National Grid would monitor and maintain embedded landscape mitigation at site-specific infrastructure for the lifetime of each project component.”

Clarification in response to first round written question 9.12b), 9.14, 9.21 and 2.9.22 (Volume 8.1.2).


ES Volume 5.7.1.2, Table 7.13 (Section B: Summary of Visual Effects of the Greatest Significance) includes receptors B1.F27 and B1.H142; however these receptors are not included in the corresponding paragraphs in ES Volume 5.7.1, sections 7.5 and 7.10.


ES Volume 5.7.2.1 and 5.7.2.2 (Appendix 7A to 7I)

Title of 7th column (from left to right) on all the Visual Assessment Tables should read:

“Approximate nearest distance from the receptor to the LoD for the Proposed Development”


ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7B

ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figure 7.28.5 and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, 7.30.5

Clarification that Acacia Farm campsite and holiday accommodation not initially identified as a separate receptor in the visual effects assessment as a separate receptor to Acacia Farm (See ES Volume 8.5, paragraph 1.2.19).

The campsite and holiday accommodation occupy three fields to the east and south of the residential properties at Acacia Farm, Tarnock. Hedgerows limit views, but generally the F Route is visible above.

The susceptibility to change in views for this receptor is medium and the views are of local value. The visual receptor sensitivity is medium.

Response to Badgworth Parish Council Written Representation.


24


ES Volume 5.7.1.2, Section 7.10

During construction and in the short-term there would be near views of works required to construct the proposed 400kV overhead line and remove the F Route, including some tree and hedgerow removal on the boundary of the camping field and temporary encroachment of fenced work areas. Construction operations would be seen in a large proportion of some close views for a short period of time and the magnitude of effect would be moderate adverse.

During operation in the short, medium and long-term the F Route would be removed from views. The proposed 400kV overhead line would be introduced along a similar alignment and extent of the view, but would be closer in the view, at a greater height and with a solid central column and cross arm. In-situ replacement hedgerow planting would re-establish in the short-term, although the trees removed would not be replaced in-situ and this would increase the extent of the proposed 400kV overhead line in the view. Overall there would be a partial alteration to the existing view and a moderate proportion of the view would be affected. The magnitude of effect on views would be moderate adverse.

Users would experience a moderate adverse significance of effect on views in the short-term during construction and in the short, medium and long-term during operation.

The significance of effect during construction and operation for visual receptor reference B1.M15 is presented in the updated ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figure 7.28.5B and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figure 7.30.5B (see Annex C of this document).

Moderate adverse significance of effect on views during construction and operation to be added to the conclusions at ES Volume 5.7.1.2, Section 7.10.

ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7B

ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7B to be amended as follows (add/ remove):

Visual receptor reference B1.B7 to include living accommodation above garage. Receptor description to read: “Tarnock Garage on the A38 Bristol Road with living accommodation on upper storey.”

Susceptibility to change at ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7B (D1.B7) would alter from ‘low’ to ‘high’ and sensitivity judgement from ‘low’ to ‘medium’.


ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7C

In ES Volume 5.7.2, Appendix 7C the baseline view for receptor C1.F22 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Along this PRoW views are largely obscured by dense mature hedgerows along the edge of the track that the ProW follows. The F Route is not visible for most of the ProW. Between Sandford and Banwell Hill dense mature hedgerows on either side of the ProW heavily filter views with glimpses of the F Route in places to the west. At the northern southern end at Banwell Wood a pylon is located adjacent to the ProW and receptors have views of the F Route above hedgerows where it passes over the ProW. Further north the ProW 24ollows follows a track down the hill and mature hedgerow and landform to the edge of the track



25


screen views. At the northern end of the ProW near Towerhead Road the ProW is across a field on elevated ground. Receptors have views north, over trees and farm buildings, across the Levels in Section D. Views include the F Route connection with the N Route and properties on Mead Lane in Sandford. The F Route is visible for a small section above trees heading north”.


In ES Volume 5.7.2, Appendix 7C receptor C1.M7 Scout hut on Hill Road, Sandford has been omitted from the visual receptor tables and should be added as follows (add/ remove):

Receptor C1.M7 is a single storey Scout hut and users would have similar views to the adjacent receptor C1.H65, however views would be more heavily filtered and obscured due to surrounding vegetation. The significance of visual effects would be no greater than minor adverse during construction and minor beneficial during operation.



ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7C (receptor C1.H68), construction effect to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“During construction: Low adverse

In the short-term at-height works associated with the removal of the F Route is are anticipated to be perceptible in some direct and oblique views. The installation of proposed 400kV underground cables would be perceptible but heavily filtered in views due to screening by intervening garden vegetation, built form and hedgerow field boundaries.

The underground cable works which would be noticeable would comprise the removal of short sections of hedgerow within the working area, topsoil stripping and the creation of soil heaps, the creation of cable trenches, cables installation and construction activity along the temporary haul road. With post and wire fencing protecting both sides of the working area. The construction of the proposed 400kV underground cable would include cable bridge activity where the cable swathe crosses Towerhead Brook and HDD or open cut crossing Castle Hill. The access roads servicing the angle pylon may also be visible but filtered and oblique.

Construction works typically would comprise no greater than a low proportion of the view from properties for a short period of time. Overall views from this receptor would experience a low adverse magnitude of effect”.


ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7D

ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7D, receptors to be amended as follows (add/remove):

Appendix 7D: Section D Somerset Levels and Moors North Visual Assessment Tables

Ref No Receptor



26


D1.H1 Eastermead Farm, pylonhead Towerhead Road (two storey property)

D1.H2 Policy House on pylonhead Towerhead Road with 2nd

storey side elevation windows with easterly views and oblique north easterly views possible from rear elevation ground and upper storey windows

D1.H3 Cathwithy Cottage, 7 pylonhead Towerhead Farm, pylonbrook Towerhead Farm on pylonhead Towerhead Road (2 storey properties)

D1.H4 Group of residential properties on pylonhead Towerhead Road


ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figure 7.28.10. and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figure 7.30.10

ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7D to be amended as follows (add /remove):

Reference to the recreational field at Moorland Park Traveller Site to be added to the visual assessment for visual receptor (D1.H58). The visual assessment at ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7D remains unchanged, apart from the addition (underlined below) to the following sentence in the description of effects during operation:

The solid column would make the T-pylons more noticeable in views from properties and the recreational field.

The following text should be added to the description of the baseline view:

“The leisure field is to the north of the properties at Moorlands Park and comprises an area of grassland to the east of the access road into Moorlands Park. The eastern boundary is formed by a drainage ditch and rough grassland allowing open easterly views across adjacent farmland”.

The significance of effect during construction and operation for visual receptor reference D1.H58 is presented in the updated ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figure 7.28.10B and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figure 7.30.10B (see Annex D of this document).



ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7D to be amended as follows (add /remove):

Visual receptor reference D1.B6 to include two residential properties. Receptor description to read: “Parsons Scrap and AVD Trade Cars Ltd on the A370 Weston Road including static caravan single storey residences.”

Susceptibility to change at ES Volume 5.7.2.1, Appendix 7D (D1.B6) would alter from ‘low’ to ‘high’ and sensitivity judgement from ‘low’ to ‘medium’.

In addition, the final sentence of the magnitude of effect entry should be amended to “the change is

Clarification provided in response to second round written question 2.7.3a (Volume 8.18.1)


27


considered to be moderate low adverse due to the increased size and solid nature of the pylons’.

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7E: Section E

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7E: Section E Tickenham Ridge Preferred Route (Option A) Visual Assessment Tables to be amended as follows (add/remove):

Appendix 7E: Section E Tickenham Ridge Preferred Route (Option A) Visual Assessment Tables

Ref No Receptor Type

Receptor

E1.H5 Residential Property

Evergreen, Old Lane, *Stoneedg-batch Stone-edge Batch (bungalow)

*(Not sure of correct spelling for this as appears differently quite a few times?)


ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7E

ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figures 7.28.16-17 and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figures 7.30.16-17


Refer to Volume 8.27.7 for the updated visual assessment at Portbury. See also Volume 8.27.8, Appendix 1, Figures 7.28.16-17B and Figures 7.30.16-17B for updated visual assessment plans.

Moderate adverse significance of effects on views during operation for visual receptor E1.H52 on preferred route (Option A) to be added to the conclusions at SE Volume 5.7.1.2, Section 7.10.

Clarification provided at Volume 8.27.7 in response to action arising from ISH in respect of Portbury/Portishead optional connection alignments (Action 5)

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7E

ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figures 7.28.16-17 and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figures 7.30.16-17

ES Volume

Refer to Volume 8.27.6 for the visual assessment for the property on Church Lane in Portbury known as the Old Dairy (visual receptor reference E1.H56). See also Volume 8.27.8, Appendix 1, Figures 7.28.16-17B and Figures 7.30.16-17B for updated visual assessment plans.

Moderate adverse significance of effects on views during operation on preferred route (Option A) to be added to the conclusions at ES Volume 5.7.1.2, Section 7.10.

Clarification provided at Volume 8.27.6 in response to action arising from ISH in respect of Portbury/Portishead optional connection alignments (Action 4)


28


5.7.1.2, Section 7.10

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7G

ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figures 7.28.18 -19 and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, 7.30.18-19


The visual assessment for St Anthony’s Park Traveller Site is provided at ES Volume 5.31. See ES Volume 5.31, Paragraphs 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 for baseline information and Paragraphs 2.3.7 to 2.3.9 for potential effects during construction and operation.

The significance of effect during construction and operation for visual receptor G1.H73 is presented in the updated ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figures 7.28.18B and 019B and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, 7.30.18B and 019B (see Annex E of this document).

Moderate adverse significance of effect on views during construction and operation for G1.H73 to be added to the conclusions at ES Volume 5.7.1.2, Section 7.10.

Clarification provided in Wessex Water Realignment (ES Volume 5.31)

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7H, Visual Receptor Reference H1.R8

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7H, visual receptor reference H1.R8 should refer to verified photomontage VPH2 not VPH1.

Typographical error and clarification in response to first round written question 9.23 (Volume 8.1.2).

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7I

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7I to be amended as follows (add/remove):

The susceptibility to change for visual receptors using the M5 recorded in the Visual Assessment Tables at ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7I (visual receptor references A2.S7.1 to A2.S7.3, B2.S2.1 to B2.S2.3, C2.S5.1 to C2.S5.2, D2.S9.1 to D2.S9.3, E2.S6.1 to E2.S6.2 and G2.S10.1 to G2.S10.3) should read ‘medium’, rather than ‘low’.

This discrepancy does not affect the sensitivity judgement, which is accurately recorded as medium in the relevant Visual Assessment Tables (ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7I) and at ES Volume 5.7.1.1, paragraph 7.4.243.

Clarification provided in response to first round written question 9.4c (Volume 8.1.2)

ES Volume 5.7.2.2, Appendix 7I

ES Volume

A visual assessment for users of the Severn Beach railway line in Section G was provided to the Joint Councils on 29

January 2015 as part of the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) discussions. This SoCG

item is now agreed.

The significance of effects on views during construction and operation is presented in the updated ES

Clarification provided in response to Joint Councils SoCG (Volume 8.3.12, Item 7.11.3)


29


5.7.3.12, Figures 7.29.12-14

ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figures 7.31.12-14

Volume 5.7.3.12, Figures 7.29.12B, 13B and 14B and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figures 7.31.12B, 13B and 14B (see Annex F of this document).

The visual assessment for users of the railway line is appended to this document together with accompanying photograph sheets and significance of effect during operation plan which shows photograph viewpoints (Figure 7.31.16C). These are all provided at Annex G of this document.

ES Volume 5.7.3.7, Figure 7.13

ES Volume 5.7.3.7, Figure 7.13, the contents table and flysheet to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Figure 7.13 – Photograph Viewpoint Locations between 1 and 3km and beyond 3km”.


ES Volume 5.7.3.8, Figure 7.14

ES Volume 5.7.3.8, Figure 7.14, the contents table and flysheet to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Figure 7.14 – Photographs of Existing Views on Long Distance Routes within 3km Viewpoint Locations beyond 3km”.


ES Volume 5.7.3.10, Figure 7.22.1

On ES Volume 5.7.3.10, Figure 7.22.1 receptor H1.F1b (ProW WL23/71) is omitted from the figure. General clarification

Volume 5.7.3.11, Figures 7.28.15 – 7.28.17 and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figures 7.30.15 – 7.30.17

ES Volume 5.7.3.11, Figures 7.28.15 to 7.28.17 and ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figures 7.30.15 to 7.30.17, missing receptor references as follows:

E1.R9 Caswell Lane.

E1.R10 Station Road.

E1.R11 High Street in Portbury.



In ES Volume 5.7.3.13, Figure 7.30.14, the grey line (indicating no view) over receptors D1.F46, D1.F47 and D1.F50 should be removed, leaving the orange line underneath (indicating a moderate adverse effect) visible.


ES VOLUME 5.8 BIODIVERSITY AND NATURE CONSERVATION

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.8 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation

ES Volume 5.20.1A Habitats Regulations Assessment Report.

ES Volume 5.20.2B Habitats Regulations Assessment Report – Appendices.

ES Volume 5.21.1B Arboricultural Impact Assessment.



30







ES Volume 5.26.3C CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.8.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.3C.

ES Volume 5.26.5C CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.8.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.5C.

ES Volume 5.28 Ecology Survey Update Report. o As a result of updates to ecology surveys for birds, bats, water vole, otter, badger and amphibians, ES Volume 8.1 should be read as amended

by ES Volume 5.28 as follows: Section 8.2 (Policy and Legislation). Section 8.3 (Method). Section 8.4 (Baseline Environment). Section 8.5 (Prediction and Assessment of Significance of Potential Effects Prior to Mitigation). Section 8.6 (Inter-relationship of Effects). Section 8.7 (Mitigation). Section 8.8 (Residual Effects). Section 8.9 (Compensation, Offsetting and Enhancement Measures). Section 8.10 (Consideration of the Water Framework Directive). Section 8.11 (Cumulative Effects). Section 8.12 (Conclusions).


prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 8 (Biodiversity and Nature Conservation).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.8.1, section 8.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.31, Chapter 3 (Biodiversity and Nature Conservation).



ES Volume 5.33.1 Bird Mortality Monitoring and Thresholds South of Mark. o This document provides details of the bird collision monitoring strategy (including proposed thresholds).



31


ES Volume 5.8.1 Annex I and Migratory Waterbirds Classed as Non-qualifying

There are some inaccuracies in the ES (Volume 5.8.1) where Annex I and migratory waterbirds that may form part of the qualifying assemblage of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and the Severn Estuary SPA are referred to as non-qualifying. While this is noted, the assessment process as undertaken and the conclusions reached would not be altered if these species are taken as a component of the qualifying assemblage for either or both of the SPAs.

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities

ES Volume 5.8.1, paragraphs 8.3.85 – 8.3.87

ES Volume 5.8.1, paragraphs 8.3.85 to 8.6.87 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“8.3.85 Based on the initial desk study information, the findings of the habitat surveys and a review of the Proposed Development, an initial reconnaissance visit was carried out in April to July 2013 to broadly scope the invertebrate surveys that would subsequently targeting species or species-groups. Surveys were undertaken in pairs with a terrestrial invertebrate surveyor working alongside an aquatic invertebrate surveyor. At least one person held a NE licence for lesser silver water beetle. At the time of this initial scoping, it was understood that the development design would alter during the upcoming year and the purpose of the survey scope (in combination with existing invertebrate data) was to provide an overall assessment of habitat suitability for invertebrate assemblages within the habitats crossed by the Proposed Development. The types of habitats found during the reconnaissance visit were used to inform the subsequent aquatic and terrestrial sampling methods”.

8.3.86 “Following this, between April and July 2013, a detailed visual inspection was carried out on 116 ditches and 3 ponds to further scope surveys, taking into account the type and quality of habitat present. Surveyors selectively targeted ditches that would be affected by the Proposed Development to identify those of greater invertebrate habitat value for subsequent aquatic and/or terrestrial sampling. Essentially this equates to approximately one in five ditches being selected, with discounted the ditches being largely dry or ponds absent and, in a few cases, polluted/of poor water quality.” [Remainder of para remains unchanged].

8.3.87 Of those visually inspected, 67 ditches and 3 ponds had aquatic survey and 13 ditches had terrestrial-only survey. The full aquatic invertebrate surveys targeted species or groups of species to enable categorisation using Species Quality Indices, described below. Full surveys were carried out through May to September 2013 during suitable weather conditions, in rolling programme alongside the detailed visual inspections that were underway. Two visits to each survey site was carried out – one earlier and one latter season. The survey methods, terrestrial and/or aquatic, were selected in accordance with standard guidance (Drake, 2007) (Ref. 8.36), as detailed in Volume 5.8.2, Appendix 8N. Although an exhaustive species list for every ditch is not generated, this level of survey is sufficient to provide an evidence base to determine the range of species associated with the ditch systems crossed by the Proposed Development and therefore, to predict effects and design mitigation in relation to invertebrates. Furthermore, the

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities: original text is revised to clarify the survey methods used during the ditch invertebrate and flora surveys.


32


Hydrochara assessment provides the additional level of information required to address the legal protection of this species.”



“The transect survey findings are detailed in Volume 5.8.2, Appendix 8H and illustrated on Volume 5.8.3, Figures 8.29.1 – 8.29.10 and 8.34.1 – 8.34.10. A total of 12 confirmed bat species were recorded, including alcathoe not previously recorded in the county (this species has similar sonogram characteristics to Geoffroy’s bat but given the location is judged highly likely to be alcathoe), and a description of the activity of each is provided below. Bat activity ‘hotspots’, correlating to high species diversity and/or particularly high contact counts of a single species, are shown in Volume 5.8.3, Figures 8.36.1 – 8.36.9. “

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities: original text is revised to provide further clarification regarding the identification of the alcathoe bat during transect surveys, as opposed to other bat species.


The Joint Councils challenged the ‘County’ value assigned to Barbastelle bats in the ES (Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.25), suggesting Barbastelle bats within the consideration zone for the Exmoor and Quantocks Oakwoods SAC should be considered part of the SAC population and assigned International value.

If Barbastelle bats within the SAC consideration zone were considered as their own receptor, the magnitude of effect would be Neutral. This is due to the minimal nature of works proposed within the Exmoor and Quantocks Oakwoods SAC consideration zone. Applying International value (High) to this results in a Not Significant effect prior to mitigation. The conclusions of the ES would not be materially changed by this alteration.


ES Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.25 and Table 8.29

The ES currently considers ‘SPA swans, geese, ducks and waders outside winter or migratory period’ in combination with ‘non-SPA swan, goose, duck or wader species during winter or on migration’ as a single receptor. The value given this receptor is Local (Low), (ES Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.25).

If ‘SPA swans, geese, ducks and waders outside winter or migratory period’ were considered as their own receptor the magnitude of effect from displacement, disturbance or habitat loss would be Neutral (ES Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.29). This is due to the very low occurrence of breeding SPA species within/adjacent to the Proposed Development. Applying International value (High) to this results in a Not Significant effect prior to mitigation (Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.29). The certainty of effect is classified as possible for displacement/disturbance and unlikely for habitat loss. The conclusions of the ES would not be materially changed by this alteration.




“Measurements of grassland losses for the alternative route differ only primarily for semi-improved neutral grassland; 158.36ha of which 76.60ha falls within the MAGIC dataset.”



33



After paragraph 8.5.124, the paragraph numbering resets to 8.5.57, returning to 8.5.125 after two further paragraphs.

Formatting error

ES Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.27 and Table 8.29

ES Volume 5.8.1 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

Add to Tables 8.27 and 8.29 a reference to the loss of bankside habitats if the culvert option for the permanent crossing of Towerhead Brook is taken forward. Note, this option is included in the assessment of effects in section 8.5 and residual effects in section 8.8.



ES Volume, 5.8.1, Paragraph 8.5.297 on vibration is supplemented by the additional information provided at Volume 8.6.2, Appendix B.

Clarification provided in response to Joint Councils’ Local Impact Report see Volume 8.6.2, Appendix B

ES Volume 5.8.1, paragraph 8.5.316 and 8.5.333

ES Volume, 5.8.1Paragraphs 8.5.316 and 8.5.333 on heat are supplemented by the additional information provided at Volume 8.6.2, Appendix A.

Clarification provided in response to Joint Councils’ Local Impact Report see Volume 8.6.2, Appendix A



“use of T-pylons which incur likely reduced collision risk in comparison to the existing lattice pylons (lower overall height, with more visible conductors and earth wires that hang at only two heights);”

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities: original text is revised as it is not appropriate to definitively state that T-pylons will have reduced collision risk relative to lattice pylons, given the lack of supporting evidence.

ES Volume 5.8.1, paragraphs 8.5.353 and 8.5.356

Reference is made to records of a small number of individuals of several migratory waterbirds. These are referred to as non-SPA species (ES Volume 5.8.1, paragraphs 8.5.353 and 8.5.356), but in accordance with the SPA selection criteria should still be viewed as potentially contributing to the overall SPA qualifying assemblages of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and the Severn Estuary SPA. Re-assigning these species as qualifying species of the SPAs would not alter the assessment conclusions reached in the ES.



ES Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.5.373 to be amended as follows(add/remove):

“No significant adverse effects on reptiles ditch invertebrates and flora are anticipated during operation, further to those already assessed under construction”



34



ES Volume 5.8.1, Table 8.29 (on page 259), to be amended as follows(add/remove):

“Table 8.29 8.31 Potential Operational Effects Prior to Mitigation”



ES Volume 5.8.1, Paragraph 8.6.9 on vibration is supplemented by the additional information provided at Volume 8.6.2, Appendix B.

Clarification provided in response to Joint Councils’ Local Impact Report see Volume 8.6.2, Appendix B


Since submitting the Environmental Statement, Natural England European Protected Species Licensing Team has issued National Grid with a Letter of No impediment for the Draft Bat licence application.

General update


Since submitting the Environmental Statement, Natural England has confirmed that a water vole licence is not required for these works (the non-licence water vole method statement is included in the BMS and has been approved by Natural England and the Environment Agency.

General update


Since submitting the Environmental Statement, Natural England has issued National Grid with a Letter of No impediment for the Draft Badger licence application.

General update


Since submitting the Environmental Statement, Natural England European Protected Species Licensing Team has issued National Grid with a Letter of No impediment for the Draft Great Crested Newt Licence application.

General update

ES Volume 5.8.1, Section 8.9

During the Examination period National Grid has continued consulting interested parties on enhancement proposals and details have been amended as a result. The latest enhancement proposals are detailed in the s106 agreement with the Joint Councils (Volume 8.4B) and the OSPES (ES Volume 5.25.1B).

General update

N/A Following a request during the first round written questions (at WQ2.5), National Grid submitted two additional figures to clarify the geographical scope of bird surveys (G1979.2520 Breeding Birds and G1979.2521 Wintering Birds). These were submitted at Appendix 2.5.1.1 and 2.5.2.1 of Volume 8.2.1.

Clarification in response to first round written questions 2.5 (Volume 8.2.1)

N/A Following a request during the first round written questions (at WQ2.5), National Grid submitted the raw fish data supplied by the Environment Agency that was displayed on Figure 8.57 (ES Volume 5.8.3.15). This was submitted at Appendix 2.5.3.1 of Volume 8.2.2.


ES VOLUME 5.9 GROUND ENVIRONMENT

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.9 Ground Environment


35



ES Volume 5.26.2C CEMP Appendix 1 - Waste Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.9 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.2C.

ES Volume 5.26.3C CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.9 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.3C.

ES Volume 5.26.5C CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.9 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.5C.


prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 9 (Ground Environment).




ES Volume 5.9.1 paragraph 9.4.287


“River Terrace Deposits are found beneath Sheepway and extend beneath route Option AB of the Proposed Development”

Typographical error


ES Volume 5.9.1, paragraph 9.5.84 to be amended:

High sensitivity and minor magnitude of effect assessed as moderate adverse significance of effects; should be minor adverse.

General Clarification

ES Volume 5.9.1, paragraphs 9.5.178 & 9.8.53

Further details regarding the construction of the proposed 132kV underground cables has been provided in response to the First Round Written Question 6.1 (Volume 8.1.1) regarding Tickenham and Clevedon SPZ,

Clarification provided in response to first round written question 6.1 (Volume 8.1.1)


After paragraph 9.7.27, the paragraph numbering resets to 9.7.1. Formatting error

ES Volume 5.9.1 paragraph 9.8.4


“The Proposed Development does not cross, or pass in close proximity to, MSAs. C.”

Typographical error


36


ES Volume 5.9.3, Figure 9.1.6, sheet 6 of 8

The River Terrace Deposits (superficial geology) beneath Sheepway are not shown on Figure 9.1.6; however these deposits have been taken into account in the assessment.

Mapping error

ES VOLUME 5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.10 Hydrology and Water Resources

ES Volume 5.23.1 Flood Risk Assessment Bridgwater Tee Cable Sealing End Compounds.

ES Volume 5.23.2 Flood Risk Assessment South of the Mendip Hills Cable Sealing End Compound.

ES Volume 5.23.3 Flood Risk Assessment Sandford Substation.

ES Volume 5.23.4 Flood Risk Assessment Seabank Substation.

ES Volume 5.23.5.1A Flood Risk Assessment Hinkley Point C Connection Route.

ES Volume 5.23.5.1A Flood Risk Assessment Hinkley Point C Connection Route - Appendices.

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex I of this document (Replacement Hinkley point C Connection Route FRA Appendix I (National FRA Flood Modelling Extents).



prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 10 (Hydrology and Water Resources).






Table 10.4 Summary of NPS EN-1 Requirements Relevant to Hydrology and Water Resources

Para Requirement Section Of ES Compliance Assessment



37


5.7.20 Site layout and surface water drainage systems should cope with events that exceed the design capacity of the system, so that excess water can be safely stored on or conveyed from the site without adverse impacts.

Volume 5.23.1; Bridgwater Tee CSE Compounds FRA; Volume 5.23.2 South of Mendip Hills CSE Compound FRA; Volume 5.23.3 Extension to Seabank Substation FRA (Volume 5.23.4); and Hinkley Point C Connection Route FRA (Volume 5.23.5)

All sites can appropriately deal with over design flood events without any material additional adverse impacts. There is no adverse impact to the Proposed Development (pylons, cables, CSE compounds and substations) as they have embedded resilience to inundation. In an over design event, when soils are fully saturated or inundated, the impermeable areas of the Proposed Development would respond in the same way as the surrounding saturated undeveloped areas. Therefore, there would be no additional adverse impact during an over design event from the Proposed Development compared to the existing situation (no development).



Table 10.15 Summary of Flood Risk from Unmitigated Construction Phase

Route Section Fluvial/ Tidal Surface Water

Groundwater Water Services

Reservoirs

A – Puriton Ridge Medium/Medium Low Medium

Low Low Low N/A

B – Somerset Levels and Moors South

High Medium/Medium

High Medium

Low Low Low N/A

C – Mendip Hills AONB

Medium Low/N/A

High Medium

Medium Low Low N/A

D – Somerset Levels and Moors North

High Medium/Medium

High Medium

Low Low Low Medium

E – Tickenham Ridge Low/N/A High Medium

Medium Low Low N/A



38


F – Portishead High Medium/Medium

High Medium

Low Low Low N/A

G – Avonmouth High Medium/Medium

High Medium

Low Low Low N/A

H – Hinkley Line Entries

High Medium/Medium

High Medium

Low Low Low N/A



Table 10.16 Flood Risk to Temporary Works

Section Risk of Flooding Comment

A Medium Mitigation required

B Medium Mitigation required

C Medium Mitigation required

D Medium Mitigation required

E Low Medium No mitigation required (some groundwater management measures may be required if the underground cable excavations intercept groundwater)

Mitigation required

F Medium Mitigation required

G Medium Mitigation required

H Medium Mitigation required




Table 10.17 Summary of Flood Risk from Unmitigated Operational Phase



39


Route Section Fluvial/ Tidal

Surface Water

Groundwater Water Services

Reservoirs

A- Puriton Ridge Low/Low Low Low No impact Low

No impact

B- Somerset Levels and Moors South

Low/Low Low Low No impact Low

No impact Low

C- Mendip Hills AONB No impact Low/N/A

Low Low No impact Low

No impact

D- Somerset Levels and Moors North

Medium Low/Low


No impact Low

E- Tickenham Ridge No impact Low/N/A


No impact

F- Portishead No impact Low/Low


No impact Low

G- Avonmouth No impact Low/Low


No impact

H- Hinkley Line Entries No impact Low/Low


No impact



“The decommissioning of the overhead lines would be similar to that for the removal of the 132kV F Route for example outlined in the construction phase of this development. Access will be by way of 4x4 vehicles and as such no access tracks or culverts will need constructing for this phase and the removal of the pylons will involve the deconstruction in stages with the infrastructure removed off site and the foundations would be removed to a depth of approximately 1m in full and subsoil and topsoil reinstated. This assessment represents a worst case scenario, whereby the pylons foundations have been assessed as being removed in full which may occur in exceptional circumstances”.

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities: original text revised to provide clarification regarding the extent of pylon foundation removal.



“Areas designated for ecological interest are located along the Proposed Development and include SSSIs

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities:


40


and other designations, such as the Kenn, Nailsea and Tickenham Moors which are designated as SSSIs relating to surface water ditches/rhynes and associated aquatic ecological habitats. These are considered to be of higher sensitivity than land along the majority of the Proposed Development that comprises agricultural land and rural areas. Prior to mitigation and in the absence of pollution control mechanisms, there is the potential for effects of low to high magnitude on water quality in the SSSI rhynes. The high sensitivity of these receptors means that there would be a moderate to major adverse significance of effect.”

original text is revised to provide clarification regarding the significance of effects on sensitive waterbodies.

ES Volume 5.10.1, Paragraph 10.7.12


“The primary measure to be taken at the site to mitigate flood risk will be to raise all water sensitive equipment above the design flood level. The minimum proposed level of 7.6mAOD is 780mm 750mm above the 1 in 200 (0.5%) annual probability event level of 6.82mAOD 6.85mAOD at present, and 490mm 440mm above the 1 in 200 (0.5%) annual probability event level of 7.11mAOD 7.16mAOD at the end of the design life, taking account of sea level rise. This level of 7.6mAOD is 1.6m above an assumed ground level of 6.0mAOD.

National Grid Flood Mitigation Policy is to protect up to the 1 in 1000 (0.1%) annual probability event where possible. For the CSE compounds, this level would be around 7.74mAOD 7.79mAOD after 40 years operation. Given that the wider flood risk policies affecting the area suggest that in the short, medium and long term, flood risk will continue to be managed to maintain the current level of risk, it is considered over conservative in this instance to design for a 1 in 1000 (0.1%) annual probability event for the ‘undefended’ situation (i.e. without flood defences). The design standard adopted for the site would therefore be the 0.5% AEP (1 in 200 annual chance) event including climate change.”


ES Volume 5.10.1, Paragraph 10.7.16

ES Volume 5.10.1, paragraph10.7.16 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“The primary measure to be taken at the site to mitigate flood risk would be to raise all water sensitive equipment above the design flood level. The minimum proposed level of 7.2mAOD is approximately 350mm 880mm above the 1 in 1000 (0.1%) annual probability event level of 6.85mAOD 6.36mAOD, with climate change.”


ES Volume 5.10.2, Appendix 10E (also ES Volume 5.8.1)

The number of potential watercourse crossings is 304, as described in ES Volume 5.8.1, paragraph 8.5.62. Four of these have been assessed as ‘no loss’, resulting in 300 watercourses being assessed from a WFD perspective (ES Volume 5.10.2, Appendix 10E).


ES VOLUME 5.11 HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.11 Historic Environment


41


ES Volume 5.30A, Annex H of this document (Replacement Heritage Asset Plans).






ES Volume 5.26.4C CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.11.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.4C.


prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 11 (Historic Environment).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.11.1, section 11.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.31, Chapter 4 (Historic Environment).



ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1), ES Volume 5.11.1, section

11.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.34.1, Chapter 3 (Historic Environment).


ES Volume 8.7.2 New and Updated Photomontages – Appendix.

ES Volume 8.7.3 New Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 6).

ES Volume 8.7.4 Updated Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 4). o ES Volumes 8.7.1 – 8.7.4 to be used in tandem with ES Volume 5.18 (the Explanatory Note at ES Volume 8.7.1 sets out which previously

submitted photomontages have been superseded).



ES Volume 5.11.1, paragraph 11.3.9, to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Field reconnaissance survey was carried out within a 50m study area either side of the centre lines of the proposed new 400kV route alignment, the 132kV overhead lines to be removed and 132kV overhead line local connections, and either side of new substation and cable sealing end (CSE) compound sites, compound sites, and access tracks. This survey is reported in Volume 5.11.2, Appendix 11C Appendix



42


11A.”


ES Volume 5.11.1, paragraph 11.3.10, to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Geophysical survey was carried out within the development footprint of substations and underground cabling, and a number of pylon bases, access tracks and other works areas, as agreed with the statutory and non-statutory consultees. This survey is reported in Volume 5.11.2, Appendix 11D Appendix 11C.”




“Archaeological trial trenching survey was carried out in areas of high archaeological potential, or where a direct effect was predicted on a known heritage asset in order to design an appropriate mitigation strategy. This survey is reported in Volume 5.11.2.10, Appendix 11EAppendix 11D.”


ES Volume 5.11.1 Paragraphs 11.5.7 and 11.5.28

ES Volume 5.11.1, Paragraph 11.5.7 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Construction phase works associated with ground disturbed by topsoil stripping or excavations for drainage, cable trenches, foundations or pits for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) are likely to result in physical effects on archaeological remains and historic landscape assets. The following assessment relates to the works described in full in the project description (ES Volume 5.3.1), and includes: …”


“The operational phase effects of the Proposed Development relate to works affecting the settings of heritage assets. These effects are assessed as being direct and permanent. The following assessment relates to the works described in full in the project description (ES Volume 5.3.1). The effects of particular relevance to this assessment would result from: …”

Clarification provided in response to first written questions, Q8.9 (Volume 8.1.2)

ES Volume 5.11.1 Paragraph 11.5.16


“A moderate adverse significance of effect is predicted in Section C in relation to asset ID AR79 (Inset 11.6), a possible Iron Age settlement site of moderate heritage significance where a moderate magnitude of effects is predicted.”

Clarification provided in response to first written questions, Q8.10 (Volume 8.1.2)

ES Volume 5.11.1, Table 11.19;

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Table 9, page 182;

ES Volume

ES Volume 5.11.1, Page 84 and ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Page 182, ES Volume 5.11.2.1 Page 241 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

ID Status Name / Description

Her Sig Phase D P/ S

Project C

Mag of E Sig of E

Residual Effect

BH61 NDHA No.1 Granary/ CWS Wheat Silo,

Moderate C & O P S 400kV Low Minor Minor



43


5.11.2.1, page 214 Avonmouth

Now demolished

Negligible OHL Negligible Neutral adverse

Neutral

ES Volume 5.11.2.1, Paragraph 1.8.43

ES Volume 5.11.2.1, Paragraph 1.8.43 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“A later, Industrial period major water management project is evidenced by John Rennie’s Syphon, which survives on Gang Wall (HL6056).”


ES Volume 5.11.2.1, Table 23, Page 245

ES Volume 5.11.2.1, Table 23, Page 245 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“John Rennie’s siphon, Gang Wall (constructed 1820s – 30s). Also a medieval drainage wall (The Gang Wall, Yatton).”


ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Table 5, Page 144;

ES Volume 5.11.2.1, Page 136

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Table 5, Page 144 and ES Volume 5.11.2.1, Page 136 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Portbury Priory and Portbury Priory Boundary Wall To South East”


ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Pages 192 – 195

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, pages 192 – 193 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“However, these values are insufficient to ascribe these assets equivalent significance to designated sites, because both the parkland and the interior of the building have been extensively re-modelled in the recent past. This is confirmed by a Historic England designation decision (Decision Date: 22-Jan-2013) which states that “This building has been assessed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended for its special architectural or historic interest. The asset currently does not meet the criteria for listing. It is not listed under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended”

1.


ES Volume 5.11.2.5, pages 206-208

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, pages 206 – 208 to be amended as follows in accordance with Section 3 of the Supplementary and Explanatory Notes to the ISH on Heritage and Historic Environment (Volume 8.13.2.2) for BH19 Tarnock Farmhouse.

Clarification provided in response to Written Representation submitted to the ExA by David Shepherd

1 http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=7&uid=1413537 (Heritage Gateway is a website maintained by Historic England)

http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=7&uid=1413537


44


BH19 Tarnock Farmhouse

Non-designated historic building

Legacy ID: 521128

Location: Section B, off Chapel Road, Rook’s Bridge, ST 37300 52600 ST 37480 52554

Appendix 11A Figure Nos.: 11A.2.6, 11A.1.9

Viewpoints: VPB22

NMR Details

Mid-17th century farmhouse, with late 17

th century and 19

th century additions and alterations.

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Values

The significance of this asset is derived principally from its evidential and historical value, as an early post-medieval farmhouse. The building’s aesthetic value is of moderate importance, although this is compromised by modern ancillary buildings and the presence of a pylon nearby. Its communal value, as an indicator of the historic character of the area, is a relatively minor contributor to significance. Setting makes a minor contribution to the asset’s aesthetic, historical and communal value, and little contribution to evidential value.

Contributory Attributes of Setting

8) HLC and landscape openness:

The asset is within the village of Tarnock, central to the ribbon settlement that developed along the Bristol Road, to the east of Rooks Bridge. The villages of Rooks Bridge, Tarnock and Biddisham are close to each other, but Tarnock is surrounded by farmland. This surrounding area is characterised as a zone of ‘anciently enclosed land modified in the 17

th to 19

th century’. Part of ribbon development through Rooks Bridge and

Tarnock, set back slightly from the road and on the edge of the surrounding farmland. This is characterised as a zone of ‘Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17

th to 19

th century…Previously wetland’. The landscape

isin general very open, with a mixture of low hedges accompanying the ditches and larger hedgerows

2) Topography & scale:

The surrounding landscape is very flat.

3) Views, formal design, & intervisibility:

The setting in general has partial views between some stands of trees, and hedgerows a mixture of those formed of mature tree lines and low box hedges. To the south, there are stands of trees that provide a

and Catherine Fisher dated 14 April 2015. Also to issue raised at Issue Specific Hearing (Heritage and Historic Environment)

Volume 8.13.2.2: Supplementary and explanatory notes relating to ISH on Historic Environment – 21 April 2015


45


greater degree of filtering of the existing 132kV pylons than the hedgerows, due to their height. There is no intervisibility between the asset and its setting, and other assets in the surrounding area. Formal design and deliberate vistas are not an attribute of the setting of this asset. However, the setting in general has views that include the surrounding agricultural land.

4) Associative historic relationships with setting attributes:

This asset relates to the other farms along the ribbon development and to the buildings within its own curtilage. As a former farmhouse, the asset is associated with the surrounding agricultural landscape as well as with the surrounding village of Tarnock.

5) Degree of change since creation:

The farm contains various modern structures, which reduce the degree to which the setting contributes to the significance of the asset. The principal modern alteration to setting is construction of the 132kV overhead line passing the asset. There have been recent changes to the building and its setting. These include the development of the Bristol Road as the A38, Tarnock Garage and the existing 132kV overhead line.

6) Links with contemporary activities:

None.

Vulnerability of Key Attributes:

The key contributory attributes to setting are the site’s historical development as evidenced by its fabric and associated structures. This setting has a high capacity to absorb change without this resulting in a loss of significance.

Attributes of the Proposed Development that May Alter Setting

Description:

The existing 132kV overhead line with pylons approximately 140m to the north-west and 136m to the south-west of the asset would be removed and a 400kV overhead line would be constructed at approximately the same distance from the asset. , which passes the asset on an approximate north to south orientation, would be removed and a 400kV overhead line would be constructed on the same approximate orientation. In addition, during the construction phase, a ‘bellmouth’ access would be constructed opposite the asset, which would be used to provide access for construction of twelve pylons between this point and the next access point to the south.

8) Distance of separation:

Closest pylon LD32 would be approximately 100m from the Listed Building’s curtilage and the


46


next closest would be approximately 250m to the south. In contrast, the closest two 132kV pylons are approximately 90m and 170m from the asset. The closest pylon (LD32) would be approximately 95m from the asset.

2) Angle of view/elevation:

Proposed Route passes from in front of the farm asset to behind it. The pylons would be built on ground at the same level as this asset.

3) Presence of filtering or activity in the view Degree of visibility:

The property has a stand of mature trees along the eastern boundary, which would provide moderate filtering of the view of the closest pylon and effective filtering of those in the distance to the north. There is some vegetation to the north of the asset which would provide some filtering of views towards pylon LD32. Pylons to the south would be viewed in combination with buildings at Tarnock Garage.

4) Position in relation to key associations:

The Proposed Development would do little to affect further the setting relationship between the asset and the ribbon development with which it shares a setting not influence the associative relationships described above to any greater degree than the existing conditions.

5) Relationship of the Proposed Development to the skyline:

Where they are visible, the pylons would break the skyline.

6) Dimensions/scale relative to setting:

The Proposed Development would represent an increasing dominance of pylons within a setting that is already dominated by 132kV pylons. The proposed pylons have a greater scale than the existing 132kV pylons.

7) Prominence, dominance or conspicuousness:

The closest 132kV pylon is are already a prominent feature in the setting of this asset, the Proposed Development would be more prominent and more conspicuous. While the Proposed Development would be more dominant than the existing pylons, this would be reduced somewhat by their greater distance from the asset. The proposed pylons would be visually prominent within the setting of the asset, but in part viewed in combination with other modern elements within the setting of the asset.

8) Changes to archaeological context/ hydrology/soil chemistry:

None


47


Effect Due to Changes to Setting

Compared to baseline conditions, the Proposed Development would introduce a larger scale of modern infrastructure into the setting of an asset where its relationship to the rural surroundings in which it is experienced makes a positive contribution to its heritage values and significance. However baseline conditions include existing infrastructure and other modern changes, and the ability to understand and appreciate the contribution made by setting to the heritage values of the asset would remain appreciable.

The magnitude of effect would be low adverse. The significance of effect would be minor adverse.

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Pages 230 – 232

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, pages 230 – 232 to be amended in accordance with Section 2 of the Supplementary and Explanatory Notes to the ISH on Heritage and Historic Environment (Volume 8.13.2.2) for LB1052 Stone-Edge FarmhouseLB1052 Stone-Edge Farmhouse

Grade II Listed Building

Legacy IDs: 33778, 1129132

Location: Section E, Clevedon Road, Stone-edge Batch, ST 46485 71766

Appendix 11A Figure Nos.: 11A.1.22, 11A.1.27, 11A.2.14, 11A.2.15

Viewpoints: VPD17

Designation Details

“Farmhouse, now house. Early C17, with later C17 kitchen/cider room wing, later alterations. Random limestone rubble, pantiled roof with large stone gable stacks. Former through passage 2-room plan. 2 storeys and 3 windows, irregular front elevation, … single storey wing attached to front left …rear of addition has lean-to with door. Right return has lean-to concealing blocked first floor window, small lean-to to rear. … attached to rear right a brick lean-to with door attached to rear of kitchen wing…”

Contribution of Setting to Heritage Values

The significance of this asset is derived principally from its historical value, as an early Post-medieval farmhouse of good survival, although evidential value is also high. Its aesthetic value is of moderate importance, although this is already compromised by modern development. Its communal value, as an indicator of the historic character of the area, is a relatively minor contributor to significance. Setting makes a moderate contribution to the asset’s aesthetic value, a minor contribution to its historical and communal value, and little contribution to evidential value.

Contributory Attributes of Setting

8) HLC and landscape openness:

Clarification provided in response to a Written Representation submitted to the ExA by David Shepherd and Catherine Fisher dated 14 April 2015 and to issue raised in Heritage and Historic Environment Issue Specific Hearing

(National Grid response provided in Volume 8.13.2.2 at Deadline 4)


48


This asset is set on the southern side of ribbon development through Rooks Bridge and Tarnock, set back from the road and on the edge of the surrounding farmland. This wider area is characterised as a zone of ‘Anciently Enclosed Land modified 17

th to 19

th century…Previously wetland’. This asset is on the southern

side of Stone-Edge-Batch, set back from the road and on the edge of the surrounding farmland. This area is characterised as a zone of ‘late medieval enclosed open fields’. The landscape to the south opens out across Tickenham Moor; however to the north (behind the asset) is a dry valley running up Tickenham Ridge, which creates a more enclosed, intimate landscape character. The asset is also within approximately 80m of the F Route and W Route 132kV overhead lines.

2) Topography & scale:

The asset is located at a height of approximately 28m aOD, near the base of Tickenham Ridge, which rises from approximately 7m to 135m aOD. The property has a small garden to the south-west, although this is notably down-slope of the building. The asset is adjacent to a busy road, and enclosed by hedgerows.

3) Views, formal design, & intervisibility:

There are views across the Levels to the south and west, incorporating Nailsea, and westwards towards Tickenham, although the view west is crossed by the extant overhead lines. Formal design and deliberate vistas are not an attribute of the setting of this asset.

4) Associative historic relationships with setting attributes:

This farm is associated with similar active properties along Clevedon Road. As a former farmhouse, the asset is associated with the surrounding agricultural landscape as well as with the surrounding village of Stone-edge-Batch.

5) Degree of change since creation:

Since this asset was built, Stone-edge Batch has increased in size by a few farms and gained a public house, and the two extant 132kV overhead lines have been built, which dominate the setting. There have been few changes, with the exception of the construction of the W and F Route 132kV overhead lines and some modern development within and extending the settlement of Stone-edge-Batch.

6) Links with contemporary activities:

None known.

Vulnerability of Key Attributes:

The key contributory attributes are the site’s position within the settlement and its architectural value. The broader setting brings little value to the asset, is already substantially altered, and as such has a high capacity to absorb change without loss of significance (assuming the setting was not compromised entirely


49


as a result).

Attributes of the Proposed Development that May Alter Setting

Description:

The existing pair of 132kV overhead lines and pylons would be removed. A 400kV overhead line would be constructed in approximately the same locations.

8) Distance of separation:

The closest pylon (LD81) would be approximately 130m from the asset, in contrast to the closest pair of existing 132kV pylons, which are approximately 80m away.

2) Angle of view/elevation:

The closest pylon would be constructed on ground approximately 8m lower than this asset, so the upper part of the pylon would be viewed from below. Where the Proposed Route crosses Tickenham Marsh, the pylons would be on ground level approximately 20m below the asset, and given the increase in distance of separation they would appear to be the same level or lower than it.

3) Presence of filtering or activity in the view:

The hedgerows between the asset and the Proposed Development provide very little filtering of the view. To the north, buildings and landform provide screening of most of the pylons progressing up Tickenham Ridge.

4) Position in relation to key associations:

The Proposed Development would not influence the setting relationship between the asset and the nearby similar sites to any greater degree than the existing conditions.

5) Relationship of the Proposed Development to the skyline:

The closest pylon would partially break the skyline, although its lower section would be backgrounded against the local countryside. The line of pylons on Tickenham Moor would not break the skyline.

6) Dimensions/ scale relative to setting:

Despite being downslope of and further away than the two existing 132kV pylons, the nearest pylon would reach higher than they do, and would be yet more out of proportion with the setting.

7) Prominence, dominance or conspicuousness:

As with the pair of existing 132kV pylons, the larger 400kV pylon would be the dominant element of the setting. The closeness in the view of the pylons on Tickenham Marsh would increase their conspicuousness. The proposed pylons would be visually prominent in the setting of the asset.


50


8) Changes to archaeological context/ hydrology/ soil chemistry:

None.

Effect Due to Changes to Setting

The Proposed Development would introduce a larger scale of modern infrastructure compared to baseline conditions into the setting of an asset where its relationship to the rural surroundings in which it is experienced makes a positive contribution to its heritage values and significance. Baseline conditions include existing infrastructure, and the ability to understand and appreciate the contribution made by setting to the heritage values of the asset would be readily discernible.

The magnitude of effect would be low adverse. The significance of effect would be minor adverse.

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Page 256

ES Volume 5.11.2.5, Page 256 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Effect Due to Changes to Setting

This building has been demolished. The heritage significance of the asset has therefore been largely eroded, and only associated buried archaeological deposits are likely to survive. The significance of the asset is therefore negligible. The magnitude of effect would be low adverse negligible. The significance of effect would be minor adverse neutral.”

ES Volume 5.11.2.2 Figure 1, sheet 9 of 46 and Figure 2, sheet 6 of 20

ES Volume 5.11.3 Figure 11.2.6

Amend location data for Tarnock Farmhouse (BH19)

Correct Grid Reference:

ST 37300 52600 ST 37480 52554

ES Volume 5.11.2.2, Figure 1, sheet 9 of 46 and Figure 2, sheet 6 of 20 has been updated and is provided at Annex H of this document.

ES Volume 5.11.3, Figure 11.2.6 has been updated and is also provided at Annex H of this document.

Clarification provided in response to Written Representation submitted to the ExA by David Shepherd and Catherine Fisher dated 14 April 2015 and issue raised at Issue Specific Hearing (Heritage and Historic Environment)

ES VOLUME 5.12 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.12 Traffic and Transport

ES Volume 5.22.1 – 5.22.3 Transport Assessment.

ES Volume 5.22.4 Transport Assessment Addendum. o This document should be read in tandem with ES Volume 5.22.1 – 5.22.3 and has been produced to address further traffic information in

relation to junction traffic profiles, junction mitigation measures, junction capacity assessments, Traffic Regulation Orders and Transport and


51


Access Plans.

ES Volume 5.22.1A Transport Assessment (Update to Section 12). o This document has been produced to replace ES Volume 5.22.1, Chapter 12 (Highway Impact) but should be read in tandem with all other

aspects of ES Volume 5.22.





prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 12 (Traffic and Transport).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.12, section 12.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.31, Chapter 5 (Traffic and Transport).





ES Volume 5.12.1, paragraph 12.4.14 to be amended as follows(add/remove):

“The A39 Bath Road (East) links Puriton Hill to a number of construction bellmouths within Section A via other construction access roads, but provides no direct links to a construction bellmouth. The road forms part of the proposed construction traffic routeing strategy and has been given a moderate minor sensitivity classification due to number and type of receptors identified along it”.



ES Volume 5.12.1, paragraph 12.4.54 to be amended as follows(add/remove):

“The road has been given a high moderate sensitivity classification due to the type and location receptors identified along it. These have been discussed below”.




Table 12.23 Section D Highway Links to be Used during Construction

Highway Link Reference Sensitivity Classification Local Authority



52


Towerhead Road TPLO-022 Negligible Minor North Somerset

Nailsea Wall TPLO-031 Moderate High North Somerset

Queens Road TPLO-037 Minor Moderate North Somerset


At ES Volume 5.12.1, Table 12.33 the title to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Table 12.33 Section G Section F Highway Links to be Crossed during Construction”.


ES Volume 5.12.1, Table 12.49 and paragraph 12.5.96

Table 12.49 and paragraph 12.5.69 state that the percentage increase in HGV traffic for Causeway is 10%. Paragraph 12.5.96 states that “there are a number of situations where the predicted peak daily construction flow is likely to result in an increase of traffic flows greater than 10%. Below 10% traffic increases are generally accepted as having little or no discernible environmental impact and as such these links have not been assessed further.” However no further assessment of Causeway has been undertaken in the ES.

Given the minor sensitivity classification of Causeway and the percentage increase in traffic, which is on the threshold for further assessment, this would result in negligible environmental impacts along this link during construction.




Table 12.55 Section H: Proposed Construction Routes

Highway Link Sensitivity Class

Baseline Assessment Year

Two-Way 24hr AADT Flows (Total Traffic/HGVs)

Wick Moor Drove Minor 2016 2588/249

Whitewick Lane (Unclassified Road North of Wick)

Moderate 236 2016 236/17




“Wick Moor Drove and Whitewick Lane (which is an unclassified road to the north of Wick) have been classified as having minor sensitivity and are predicted to receive percentage increases in total traffic of approximately 9%18% and 26% respectively”.



53


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.3). Clarification relating to the reasons that Somerset Council believes physical measures are appropriate at the A39 Puriton Hill/Bath Road and A39 Bath Road junctions.

Clarification in response to first round written question 15.3 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.4). Clarification regarding the analysis undertaken regarding the SRN restrictions and how restrictions on the LRN would have a positive impact on the SRN.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.5). Clarification in written response 15.5, Table 1 shows the lengths of sections of roads to be stopped up, the diversion lengths proposed and the reasons for the stopping up, together with the likely maximum durations. Additionally, clarification on processes regarding properties directly affected by the works, compensation and the programme of works.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.6). National Grid provided a response (15.6.1) detailing the signage strategy which will be employed along all construction routes with regard to safety of other users, specifically responding to the Avon Cycle Way.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.7). National Grid provided additional detailed diversions to PRoW affected by the proposed construction works. These PRoW specially being: LA/13/8; LA/13/9; LA/13/1; LA/15/20; LA/13/45; LA13/10; and LA/20/56. Clarification was also provided on the signage strategy to be employed where alternative diversions are required.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.8). Clarification is provided regarding the classification of significance of ‘negligible’ impact with regard to the impacts of HGV construction traffic on Nailsea Wall and the Avonmouth Cycle Way.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.9). National Grid clarification on the size of the Churchill compound.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.10). Clarification on the measures which will be employed by National Grid to ensure that all traffic accessing compounds and lay down areas will use only the prescribed access routes as described in ES Volume 5.22.1, Section 4.4.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.11). Clarification on the term of ‘staff vehicles’, non-provision of on-site accommodation.



54


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.12). Based on the National Grid Statement ES Volume 5.22.1, Paragraph 4.7.5 clarification provided regarding the steps taken to ensure that areas defined for construction of bellmouths are appropriate.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.13). Clarification on why stopping up orders are sought and not temporary road closures in some instances given that the roads are to be re-opened.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.14). With regard to Pill Road and Max Mill, clarification is provided regarding the works required to be undertaken on Pill Road and Max Mill, efforts to identify the impacts of the works and the proposals to minimise impacts of construction works on individuals and enterprises affected.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.15). Clarification provided that no stopping up order will be sought for Wemberham Lane.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.16). Paragraph 15.16.3 to 15.16.4 clarifies that access to residences and businesses will be maintained during construction works and provides details on mitigation measures relating to stopping up.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.17). Clarification of the steps that will be taken to ensure that sectional work is so arranged as to minimise the period of closure of stopped up roads.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.18). Clarifies how staff will be transported to work with reference to the CTMP (ES Volume 5.26.5A), how locally staff will be employed (referencing WQ15.26) and sanctions used to ensure private vehicles are not used to transport staff to work (referencing WQ15.69),


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.19). Clarifies core working house, consultation and agreement with Environmental Health Authorities and what procedures will be used to determine ‘reasonably practicable’ outside working hours (reference WQ11.2 and 15.21).


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.20). Clarifies detail of all works which would require possession of major infrastructure, circumstances which would require such work outside core working hours and would differ from those set out in Requirement 7(3) (Draft DCO) and the need for Requirement 7(3) to be amended with regard to this work taking place outside the core hours.



55


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.21). Clarification on how ‘reasonably practicable’ terms of ensuring that disturbance from activities taking place outside of core hours is tested. Descriptions and justifications of these works are detailed in WQ4.47.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.22). Clarification provided on how ‘certain other specific construction activities’ would require extended working house for reasons of engineering practicability would be permitted by the DCO through the Local Authority approval. Additionally, clarification is provided on how strict adherence to the core hours, with limited flexibility based on specifically argued exceptions would impact on the project delivery.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.23).With respect to the A370 (Section D) clarification is provided relating to: emergency diversion routes; consultations with Highways England with regard to diversion routes; alternate routes which may be required in the event of a closure; and clarification on how alternate routes would be secured in the CTMP through the DCO.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.24). Clarifies the approach and methodology of assessing accident data (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) as used in the Transport Assessment (ES Volume 5.22.1) on the proposed construction route network is acceptable and has been agreed with the Local Authorities, in comparison with the use of and methodology used in the Hinkley Point C Power Station, specifically the Somerset Road Safety Partnership (SRSP) methodology.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.25). Clarifies that the junction design at Factory Lane, Rooks Bridge is sufficiently advanced to enable a proper assessment of the land requirement and that the technical approval, including RSA Stage 1 and 2, have been agreed with by Somerset County Council Highways Department.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.26). Clarifies measures which will be employed to ensure that staff will only use provided transport to travel to and from work.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.27 and WQ15.28). Clarifies how and why vehicles from local quarries would only follow the prescribed construction routes whose planning consents may not prescribe the same routes. Clarification is also provided on information gathered from quarry operators and existing operation conditions relating to traffic generation and routeing o quarry vehicles.

Clarification in response to first round written questions 15.27 and 15.28 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.29). Clarification that the application of 20% contingency factor on predicted construction traffic generated by the development is based on National Grid project experience, citing how construction traffic is calculated and specific instances, i.e. variation of ground

Clarification in response to first round written question15.29 (Volume


56


conditions where traffic may increase, but this is expected to be lower than 20% contingency factor. 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.30). Clarification that the AM and PM peak periods of assessment are the same through the assessment methodology.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.31). Clarification on how it was established that 20% of all aggregates cold arrive from the east, i.e. Mendip quarries, and what impact 0% and 100% would have on traffic movements.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.32). Clarification on the distribution of construction traffic at M5 junctions.

Clarification in response to first round written question15.32 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.33). Text amendment to ES Volume 5.22.1, Paragraph 10.9.3.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.34 to WQ55). Clarifications provided with regard to data assessments undertaken in the Baseline, Future Baseline and Future Baseline plus Development scenario and contained in the TA (ES Volume 5.22.1, Section 12). Additional clarifications provided with regard to discrepancies identified in the text of the report within Transport Assessment (ES Volume 5.22.1, Section 12).

Clarification in response to first round written questions15.34 to 15.55 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.56). Clarification of negligible impact of the Proposed Development traffic on junction assessed to be at their theoretical capacity in the Future Baseline scenario.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.57). Clarification on the use and meaning of the terms “theoretical capacity” and “practical capacity”.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.58). Clarification on the statement in ES Volume 5.22.1, Paragraph 15.2.4 relating to reduction of vehicles using the SRN junctions as a result of the restrictions on



57


the LRN junctions. 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.59). Clarification regarding the car sharing databased which relates to staff travelling from the homes to their local accommodation only.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.62). Clarification on the origin of a ‘generic’ statement from a National Grid operation manual included to inform stakeholders. It is confirmed in National Grid response to WQ15.62 that the inclusion of this text in the ES is not completely representative of the measures to be adopted for the Proposed Development.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.63). Clarifies the identification marks to be used on HGV and LGV construction vehicles associated with the Proposed Development.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.64). Clarifies the signage strategy to be used on permitted and non-permitted construction routes.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.65). Clarifies how HGV traffic movement restrictions will be imposed, what enforcement measures will be employed, what physical measures will be imposed to ensure restricted junctions will not be used and if additional considered has been given to restrictions on other types of construction and delivery traffic.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.66). Clarifies the exceptional circumstances in which HGV movements will be permitted on the LRN at specific the times detailed in ES Volume 5.26.5, Paragraph 6.4.6.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.67). Clarifies the employment of and the role, responsibilities and expected qualifications of the Travel Plan Co-orindator.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.68). Provides clarification on Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS).

Clarification in response to first round written


58


question15.68 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.69). Provides clarification on appropriate measures National Grid will be undertaken to ensure contractor compliance, monitoring of behaviour and contractual constraints.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.70). Clarifies the process for addressing and mitigating bus stop impacts, i.e. how National Grid will identify and provide alternative arrangements for bus passengers where bus stops are being suspended.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.71). Clarifies the location of the description of the ‘exact nature’ of the rights in each category as detailed on the Land Plans P & D 4.2.2A to 4.2.9A.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.72). Provides clarification of the description of Class 6 land being ‘Access’ in the legend of the Land Plans in P&D 4.2.2A.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.73). Clarifies the rights of access relating to the Class 6 land and the rights of access in existence during the construction and post construction periods.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.73). Clarification of the class rights sought on Plots 29, 111, 117 and 506.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.75). Provides clarification on Class 3 and Class 6 accesses sought at locations not on the major construction traffic routes.



59


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.76). Provides clarification on Class 3 and Class 6 accesses sought at locations relatively close to each other, specifically eg in plots 23, 35, 54, 55, 72, 75, 140, 142 on P&D 4.2.4 Drg No C/LP/PS/2 and plots 236, 237, 241, 245 on P&D 4.2.8 Drg No G/LP/PS/3.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.79). Clarification provided on how vehicle handling and parking capacity requirements within bellmouth entrances assessed and designed to ensure that site traffic does not have to queue on public roads before entering the site.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.80). Clarification the need to provide alternate construction routes in the Clevedon Area and detail on alternate routes to remove traffic from Clevedon.


N/A

Response to first round written question (WQ15.81). Clarification on improvements to the highway and ProW infrastructure as part of the Proposed Development.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.82). Clarification of how the levels of significance determined in the ES Cumulative Effects (ES Volume 5.17.1) and detailed in Table 17.5 for the committed developments have been derived, and if the relevant highways authorities are in agreement with the methodology.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.83). Clarification on the proposed disposal of waste, proposed disposal sites and confirmation/ clarification that waste disposal traffic has been included within the predicted construction traffic.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.84). Clarification on AIL vehicles activities, specifically: does the process include ‘before and after’ road condition surveys; how will AIL requirements be secured through the DCO; and detail on notice period given to the local highways authorities.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.85). Clarifications on access arrangements and transportation issues raise in representations from Royal Mail, Bristol Port Company and Avon Fire & Rescue Services.



60


8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.86). Provide clarification on alternative locations have been considered for access and haul road positions and if alternatives require amendments to bellmouth positions or have an impact on the construction routes set out in ES Volume 5.22.3.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.87). Clarification of haul Road construction access arrangements for Pylons no LD41 and northwards, that there will be no construction access at all from Droveway and confirmation that that there will be no use of the access along Hams Lane from Loxton to Hams Lane (Mendips) CSE.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.88). Clarification of construction access details onto the haul route from A370 travelling south to pylons LD51, LD50 and beyond and status of road, i.e. subsidiary road.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.89). Clarification of Clarify construction haul road access details from Hanham Way to Pylons LD 79 to 81 and for 132kV underground Route.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.90). Clarification of construction access details from Clevedon Road to Pylons LD 81 to 87.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.91). Clarification of Clarify whether or not the access through from A38 at Rooks Bridge serves not only part of Section B and the Mendips CSE but also the whole of Section C through to A368 Towerhead Road.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.92). Clarifies the specific details regarding five public highway crossing points that are referred to as being required for the temporary construction haul road.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.93). Clarification of access details for construction of the Clarification in response to first round written


61


existing overhead line AT Route. question15.93 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.94). Clarification of information regarding the construction access proposals for the W Route underground cable route near Nailsea.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.96). Clarifies additional details on wheel cleaning facilities. Clarification in response to first round written question15.96 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.97). Clarifies intended haul road access arrangements accessing and crossing B3130 in the vicinity of Stone Edge Batch between Old Lane and Tickenham Hill.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.101). Clarification on discussions that have taken place regarding affected PRoWs with officers of other Local Authorities and Parish Councils.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.102). Clarifies what condition surveys are to be carried out to ensure that final reinstatement can return PRoWs to their original condition on completion of the Development and if the relevant highway authority and landowners be involved with the surveys.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.103). Clarification provided on the purpose and role of the Hinkley Point C Community Relations team and their relevance has it to the Proposed Development.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.105). Clarifies are the lengths of highway involved in the closures defined in ES Volume 5.26.6, Appendix A, distances involved in the indicated diversions, periods of time are the closures intended to operate and what traffic counts have been taken to determine the amount of traffic affected by each closure. Reference provided to National Grid response to WQ15.5.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.106). Clarification on the need to implement closures Clarification in response to


62


ST6.1-ST6.2 at the same time as closure ST6.3-ST6.4. first round written question15.106 (Volume 8.1.3)

N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.107). Clarification on the varying types of PRoW detailed in ES Volume 5.26.6, special measures proposed to manage access and alternate routes for equestrian use.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.108). Clarification regarding PRoW and where stopping up is proposed why are no alternative routes identified.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.109). Clarification regarding special measures to safeguard designated long distance footpaths (eg the West Mendip Way) and cycle paths (eg the Strawberry Line) crossing or running close to the line of the Proposed Development.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.110). Clarification on the use of 10% within the Sensitivity Test (ES Volume 5.29.2.2.1).


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.111). Clarification regarding the removal of the B3133 from and revision to the ES Sensitivity Test Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 14B – Construction Traffic Noise Assessment – Issue B No 13.


N/A Response to first round written question (WQ15.112). Clarification on the implications of the Revised Construction Programme, specifically relating to the cumulative impacts of the construction traffic for this Project when considered in combination with other developments, such as the Hinkley C nuclear power station and the second Cheddar reservoir. Additional clarification of how any such impacts would be addressed is provided.


ES VOLUME 5.13 AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.13 Air Quality and Emissions


63






prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 13 (Air Quality and Emissions).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.13.1, section 13.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.31, Chapter 6 (Air Quality and Emissions).




ES Volume 5.13.1 The future baseline during decommissioning phase of the Proposed Development is not described in the chapter. The future baseline would remain as the same as the current baseline, provided in ES Volume 5.13.1, and the findings of the air quality assessment would not be affected.

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities.

ES Volume 5.13.1, Section 13.7

Updates to mitigation measures in respect of air quality and emissions are provided in the CEMP at ES Volume 5.26.1C

N/A

ES VOLUME 5.14 NOISE AND VIBRATION

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.14 Noise and Vibration




ES Volume 5.26.7B CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.14 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.7B.


64



prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 14 (Noise and Vibration).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.14.1, section 14.4 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.31, Chapter 7 (Noise and Vibration).




ES Volume 5.26.7B

The Noise and Vibration Management Plan is a new document prepared by National Grid after the completion of ES Volume 5.14 (Noise and Vibration) as submitted to PINS as part of the DCO application. The Noise and Vibration Management Plan has subsequently been updated throughout the examination; the final version is ES Volume 5.26.7B.



After paragraph 14.12.17, the paragraph numbering resets to 14.12.1. General clarification

ES Volume 5.14, Appendix 14F

The Figures and Tables in Appendix 14F have been incorrectly referenced as 14D. General clarification

ES VOLUME 5.15 SOCIO-ECONOMICS AND LAND USE

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.15 Socio-economics and Land Use





prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 15 (Socio-economics and Land Use).


65




ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1), ES Volume 5.15.1, section

15.5 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.34.1, Chapter 4 (Socio-economics and Land Use).



ES Volume 5.15.1, Table 15.3 (row 11) to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Table 15.44 15.46 presents the likely significant amenity effects by receptor type, for those receptors where potential in-combination effects were identified, whilst the full assessment of amenity effects is presented in Volume 5.15.2, Appendix 15J.”



Clarification to method at ES Volume 5.15.1, Table 15.7 relating to the sensitivity ascribed to Bristol Port Company land. Provided in Volume 8.1.2.

Response to first round written question 14.10 (Volume 8.1.2)

ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.3.27 and Table 15.9

Clarification regarding the identification of receptors in ES Volume 5.15.1, Table 15.9, which includes tourism/visitor economy and accommodation as an economic sector and profile receptor and PRoW, recreational routes, visitor attractions, recreational areas and facilities as a land use receptor.


ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.3.31 and paragraph 15.5.31

Clarification to bullet points at ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.3.31 and paragraph 15.5.31 regarding off-peak and peak tourist seasons.



Clarification to assessment method at ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.4.44 to determine the potential effects on the future development of sites within the ASEA. Provided in Volume 8.1.2.



Clarification to assessment method at ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.4.47 for the consideration of impacts to major attractions located beyond the wider study area. Provided in Volume 8.1.2.




“Impacts on the amenity value of ProW and recreational routes are considered at Table 15.4415.46.”



66


ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.5.121 to 15.5.126.

ES Volume 5.15.2 Appendix 15J

Amenity (living conditions) assessments for additional receptors and further details on existing amenity (living conditions) assessments were provided at the request of the Examining Authority. These are presented in the relevant submissions as follows:

Health, Wellbeing and Electric and Magnetic Fields, and Socio Economics Issue Specific Hearing – assessment submitted in Volume 8.13.7.1, Appendix D;

ASEA and Bristol Port Issue Specific Hearing – assessment submitted in Volume 8.13.9;

Portbury and Portishead Issue Specific Hearing – assessment submitted in Volume 8.13.12; and

Question 2.7.10 of the Examining Authority’s Second Written Questions – assessment submitted in Volume 8.18.2.1 Appendix 2.7.10.1.

Responses provided to requests from the ExA throughout the Examination.


ES Volume 5.15.1, Table 15.46 (row 35) to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Mark Causeway/Dutch Road – Effects of negligible magnitude are expected in relation to air quality and transport, whilst the visual and noise assessments anticipates effects of low magnitude during all phases. The visual assessment identifies that the magnitude of effects ranges depending on the property, from moderate adverse, low adverse and negligible to low beneficial. Overall, it is considered that there will be effects of low magnitude Consequently, it is considered that there will be and minor adverse effects on the amenity in all phases of development”.


ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.8.1 (bullet point 10)

ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.8.1 (bullet point 10) to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“The residual amenity effects are presented in Table 15.4415.46. Minor adverse construction amenity effects have been identified on 41 recreational routes, 12 settlements and two tourism or recreational/community facilities. Moderate adverse construction amenity effects have been identified on five recreational routes, 12 settlements and three tourism or recreational/community facilities.”


ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.8.1 (bullet point 20)

ES Volume 5.15.1, paragraph 15.8.1 (bullet point 20) to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“The residual amenity effects are presented in Table 15.4415.46. Minor adverse operational amenity effects have been identified on 41 recreational routes, 10 settlements and four tourism or recreational/community facilities. Moderate adverse operational amenity effects have been identified on one recreational routes, two settlements and one tourism or recreational/community facility.”


ES Volume 5.15.2, Appendix 15I

Reference to ProW OAY223 within ES Volume 5.15.2, Appendix 15I is a typographical error.

The correct ProW Reference number for the condition survey presented is ProW OAY112.

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities – typographical error.


67


ES Volume 5.15.2, Appendix 15J

The assessment of the project on footpaths OAY/111, OAY/112, ORN/27, ORN/72 and OAU/28 was omitted in error from the EIA and the impacts on the amenity of these footpaths is therefore not reported in the ES. Subsequently an assessment of these footpaths has been undertaken. This assessment concluded that these are locally designated routes for all groups of users (i.e. not specific to sensitive groups, although sensitive groups may use them) that are considered to have an ability to absorb change. Overall it has been assessed that there would be minor adverse effects on these ProWs. The ProW Management Plan, provided at ES Volume 5.26.6, and the mitigation measures proposed within the individual ES chapters (i.e. the visual effects, traffic and transport, air quality and emissions and noise and vibration chapters) will provide appropriate mitigation of these adverse effects.




The assessment of the effects on footpath WL23/71 was omitted in error from the EIA and the impact on the amenity of this footpath is therefore not reported in the ES. Subsequently an assessment of this footpath has been undertaken. This assessment concludes that this footpath is a locally designated route for all groups of users (i.e. not specific to sensitive groups, although sensitive groups may use them) that is considered to have an ability to absorb change. Overall it has been assessed that there would be a minor adverse effect on this ProW. The ProW Management Plan, provided at ES Volume 5.26.6, and the mitigation measures proposed within the individual ES chapters (i.e. the visual effects, traffic and transport, air quality and emissions and noise and vibration chapters) set out appropriate mitigation of this adverse effect.


ES VOLUME 5.16 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.16 Electric and Magnetic Fields


prediction and assessment of significance of potential effects, mitigation, residual effects) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 16 (Electric and Magnetic Fields).



ES VOLUME 5.17 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.17 Cumulative Effects


68


ES Volumes 5.5 – 5.16 (ES Chapter EIA ‘Approach and Method’ and Topic Chapters).


ES Volume 5.26.2C CEMP Appendix 1 - Waste Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.17.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.2C.


ES Volume 5.26.4C CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.17.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.4C.



ES Volume 5.26.7B CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.17.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.7B.

ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test. o ES Volume 5.17.1 should be read as amended by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 17 (Cumulative Effects).






A small number of major development planning applications have been identified from the relevant local planning authorities’ websites (planning application searches) following this scoping exercise. All such applications have also been subject to the ‘Information Gathering’ exercise detailed above to obtain more detailed information about the development proposals.



In relation to development ID 38, the cumulative landscape assessment includes a description of cumulative landscape effects during operation as follows:

“Cumulative Effects

Cumulatively the magnitude of effect caused by both developments would involve a partial alteration to characteristics of the existing landscape. The sensitivity of the landscape is medium and in areas of working the significance of effect would be moderate adverse. The significance of effect would reduce further away



69


from the working areas.

The cumulative indirect significance of effect on the Mendip Hills AONB would also be moderate adverse in the short-term largely resulting from the construction of the Proposed Development in the immediate setting of the Mendip Hills AONB.”

The reference to ‘short term effects’, ‘construction activities’ and ‘areas of working’ in the text quoted above is an error. However, the significance of the cumulative effect on landscape character in Section D (where the Proposed Development and the Carditch Drove Solar Panels are proposed) would be moderate adverse during operation.



“None of t The predicted cumulative effects of all assessed plans and projects combined are not greater than the predicted effect of the Proposed Development. No increase in the level of impact to the biodiversity receptors is predicted and it is therefore concluded that the mitigation proposals described within Volume 5.8.1, section 8.7 are robust and no additional mitigation above is required with regards biodiversity.”

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities: original text suggests that combined impacts from projects that individually have no significant effects have not been assessed.


There is an omission of an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) designation from the cumulative effects table (ES Volume 5.17.1, Table 17.16), located around Bristol City Centre.

ES Volume 5.17.1, Table 17.16 should read “BCC has one extant AQMA for NO2 and PM10 in the city centre, but existing air quality at Portbury likely to be good.”

The AQMA is described in ES Volume 5.13.1, and the Proposed Development and construction traffic routes do not pass through or close to this AQMA. The omission does not affect the findings of the assessment at either ES Volume 5.13.1 or ES Volume 5.17.1.

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities.

ES Volume 5.17.2, Appendix 17D, ID 93

ES Volume 5.17.2, Appendix 17D, ID93 to be added to Appendix 17D – Scoped Out Major Development Proposals.


ES VOLUME 5.18 PHOTOMONTAGES

Updates to ES Volume 5.18 Photomontages

In response to a number of matters raised during examination, a number of new and updated photomontages have been produced (to be used in tandem with ES Volume 5.18) as follows:

o ES Volume 8.7.1 New and Updated Photomontages – Explanatory Note. o ES Volume 8.7.2 New and Updated Photomontages – Appendix.


70


o ES Volume 8.7.3 New Verified Photomontages. o ES Volume 8.7.4 Updated Verified Photomontages.

The Explanatory Note at ES Volume 8.7.1 sets out which previously submitted photomontages have been superseded.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.18 Photomontages

ES Volume 5.7 Visual Effects.

ES Volume 5.11 Historic Environment.

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment.

Note that the change in significance of effect (historic environment – Kings Weston House) as set out at ES Volume 5.34 (ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth) did not require any updated photomontages to support it.


ES Volume 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2

New and updated photomontages are at Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4.

New photomontages have been produced for the following heritage locations requested by the Examining Authority:

View from the east or south east towards Portbury Church and settlement taking in Route Option A;

View from the north towards Portbury Church and settlement taking in Route Option A;

View of Tickenham Listed Buildings and the pylons;

View along Puxton Lane encompassing the Church and the pylons;

View from Banwell Plain Hillfort towards Sandford CSE;

View eastwards along the A38 at Rooks Bridge taking in the Pylons and Old Manor, School House, etc ;

View eastwards along Mark Causeway taking in Old Auster;

View westwards taking in Wainbridge Farmhouse;

View north westwards from the A39 Bath Road, towards the line of pylons taking in Knowle Hall ; and

View from Mere Bank Road.

A full description of the new photomontage locations is provided at Volume 8.7.2.


ES Volume 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2

New and updated photomontages are at Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4.

New photomontages have been produced for the following locations requested by the Examining Authority:

View from Droveway Farm;

SoCG discussions with the local planning authorities; and Clarification in response to first round


71


View from South facing properties looking at 400kV line descending Tickenham Ridge;

View from within Nailsea Moor;

View from Elm Tree Park Mobile Home Park; and

View towards Hallen Marsh from Severn Road motorway overbridge.

A full description of the new photomontage locations is provided at Volume 8.7.2.

written questions 9.24, 9.26 and 9.27 (Volume 8.1.2)

ES Volume 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2

New and updated photomontages are at Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4

Updated photomontages in response to SoCG discussions concerning the River Axe and Towerhead Brook cable bridges have been produced for the following photomontages:

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPB12 during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.4, Figure 18.2.20);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPB20 on completion and after 15 years (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.5, Figure 18.2.29);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPC2 on completion and after 15 years (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.7, Figure 18.2.40);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPC6 on completion and after 15 years (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.7, Figure 18.2.44);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPC15 during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.7, Figure 18.2.45);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPC8 during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.8, Figure 18.2.47);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPC12 on completion and after 15 years (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.8, Figure 18.2.51); and

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPC16 during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.3, Figure 18.3.2).


ES Volume 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2

New and updated photomontages are at Volume 8.7.1 to 8.7.4

Updated photomontages to reflect the Wessex Water re-alignment have been produced for the following photomontages:

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPF1 preferred route Option A and alternative route Option B

Update to reflect Wessex Water re-alignment (ES Volume 5.31) between pylons LD120 and LD122


72


during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.16, Figure 18.2.92);

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPG2 during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.18, Figure 18.2.100);



Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPG7 during operation (update replaces previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.19, Figure 18.2.105); and

Verified Photomontage Viewpoint VPG8 preferred route Option A and alternative route Option B during operation (update to replace previously submitted ES Volume 5.18.2.19, Figure 18.2.106).

ES Volume 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.1.2

Supplementary photomontage information is provided in the following locations:


Volume 8.2.3- 8.2.24, Appendix 9.23d.2.1 to 9.23d.2.22: photomontage figures illustrating tree removal in the view; and

Volume 8.18.2.2, Appendix 2.9.25: T-pylon colour study photomontage figures.


Clarification in response to first round written questions9.23 (Volume 8.1.2);



ES Volume 5.18.2.7, Figure 18.2.45 verified photomontage VPC15 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Existing view

Existing view from PRoW AX21/2 on higher ground west of properties at Loxton (accessed via North Lodge property off Hillview Road, Loxton or from Shiplate Road) looking south towards the F Route across the Somerset Levels and Moors in Section B (Section C)”


ES VOLUME 5.19 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.19 Non-Technical Summary


73


ES Volumes 5.1 – 5.18 (Topic Chapters).




ES Volume 5.26.4C CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.19 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.4C.




ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test. o ES Volume 5.19 should be read as amended (to all individual topic sections) by ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Chapter 19 (Non-Technical Summary).

ES Volume 5.31 ES Wessex Water Realignment. o ES Volume 5.19 should be read as amended (to all individual topic sections) by ES Volume 5.31.



ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1), ES Volume 5.19 should be

read as amended (to all individual topic sections) by ES Volume 5.34.



INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

ES VOLUME 5.20 HABITATS REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT REPORT

Updates to ES Volume 5.20 Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

In response to a number of matters raised during examination, an updated Habitats Regulations Assessment Report has been produced as follows:


74


o ES Volume 5.20.1A Habitats Regulations Assessment Report. o ES Volume 5.20.2B Habitats Regulations Assessment Report – Appendices.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.20 Habitats Regulations Assessment Report

ES Volume 5.8 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation.




ES Volume 5.26.1C CEMP. o CEMP construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.20 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.1C.

ES Volume 5.26.3C CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy. o CEMP construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.20 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.3C.

ES Volume 5.28 Ecology Survey Update Report. o As a result of updates to ecology surveys for birds, bats, water vole, otter, badger and amphibians, ES Volume 5.28 should be read in tandem

with ES Volume 5.20 but would have no further implications for HRA.

ES Volume 5.32B Overarching Mitigation Annex.

ES Volume 5.33.1 Bird Mortality Monitoring and Thresholds South of Mark. o This document provides details of the bird collision monitoring strategy (including proposed thresholds).


ES Volume 5.20.1 Mute Swans’ Contribution to the SPA

All of the species assessed in the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) at ES Volume 5.20.1 are either qualifying species in their own right, or form part of the assemblage. With regard to mute swan, it is made clear that the species meets the criteria for selection as part of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site and as a result, the population of mute swan was screened into the HRA and considered at the appropriate assessment stage. It should have also been made clear that this species also contributes to the SPA assemblage of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA.


ES Volume 5.20.1 Annex I and Migratory Waterbird Species

The project specific survey work recorded very small numbers of other Annex I and migratory waterbird species that may contribute to the overall assemblage of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and the Severn Estuary SPA. However, given the very small numbers of these species and the locations in which they were present in relation to the zone of potential effects of the HPCC project, these species were not screened into the HRA at ES Volume 5.20.1. It should also be noted that the overall assessment of the implications of the HPCC project on the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and the Severn Estuary SPA is



75


made with reference to the populations of the qualifying features.

ES Volume 5.20.1 Annex I and Migratory Waterbirds Classed as Non-qualifying

There is one instance (mute swan) in the HRA (ES Volume 5.20.1) where Annex I and migratory waterbirds that may form part of the qualifying assemblage of the Somerset Levels and Moors SPA and the Severn Estuary SPA are referred to as non-qualifying. While this is noted, the assessment process as undertaken and the conclusions reached would not be altered if these species are taken as a component of the qualifying assemblage for either or both of the SPAs.


ES Volume 5.20.1A, paragraph 2.4.1

Paragraph 2.4.1, relating to the duration of the construction phase has been amended in the updated HRA report at ES Volume 5.20.1A to reflect the revised programme set out in the ESST at ES Volume 5.29.1 and the agreed phasing of the construction of the proposed 400kV underground cables.

ES Sensitivity Test at ES Volume 5.29.1 and general updates to the construction of the Proposed Development

ES VOLUME 5.21 ARBORICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Updates to ES Volume 5.21 Arboricultural Impact Assessment

In response to a number of matters raised during examination, an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been produced as follows: o ES Volume 5.21.1B Arboricultural Impact Assessment o ES Volume 5.21.2B Arboricultural Impact Assessment – Appendices. o ES Volume 5.21.3B Arboricultural Impact Assessment – Figures.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.21 Arboricultural Impact Assessment

ES Volume 5.6 Landscape.









ES Volume 5.26.2C CEMP Appendix 1 - Waste Management Plan. o CEMP construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.21 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.2C.


76


ES Volume 5.26.3C CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy.


ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth. o In the event that the pylons LD109 to LD113 are amended in accordance with the description in ES Volume 5.34.1), ES Volume 5.21 should be

read as amended by (one tree ID450 would change from ‘removal’ to ‘no action’ and another tree ID456 would change from ‘removal’ to ‘managed by pruning’) by ES Volume 5.34.1, Chapter 5 (Arboricultural Impact Assessment).



ES VOLUME 5.22 TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT

Updates to ES Volume 5.22 Transport Assessment

In response to a number of matters raised during examination, the following documents have been produced to be read in tandem with the Transport Assessment at ES Volume 5.22.1 – 5.22.3:

o ES Volume 5.22.4 Transport Assessment Addendum. This document should be read in tandem with ES Volume 5.22.1 – 5.22.3 and has been produced to address further traffic information

in relation to junction traffic profiles, junction mitigation measures, junction capacity assessments, Traffic Regulation Orders and Transport and Access Plans.

o ES Volume 5.22.1A Transport Assessment (Update to Section 12). This document has been produced to replace ES Volume 5.22.1, Chapter 12 (Highway Impact) but should be read in tandem with all

other aspects of ES Volume 5.22.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.22 Transport Assessment

ES Volume 5.12 Traffic and Transport.


ES Volume 5.26.5C CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan. o CEMP construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.22 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.5C.

ES Volume 5.26.6C CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan. o CEMP construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.22 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.6C.




77



ES VOLUME 5.23.1 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT BRIDGWATER TEE CABLE SEALING END COMPOUNDS

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.23.1 Bridgwater Tee Cable Sealing End Compounds FRA

ES Volume 5.10 Hydrology and Water Resources.

ES Volume 5.26.1C CEMP. o CEMP construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.23.1 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.1C.



ES Volume 5.23.1 Request for clarification on flood levels at present and with climate change allowances, and design levels, requesting sketches demonstrating these levels.

The response to this question included four sketches which were included in Appendices 5.12.1.1, 5.12.2.1, 5.12.3.1 and 5.12.4.1 to the responses to the WQs. These sketches showed the levels that were quoted in the four FRAs covering the two substations and the two cable sealing end compounds.

Response to first round written questions 5.12(b) (Volume 8.1.1)

ES Volume 5.23.1, Appendix D

ES Volume 5.23.1, Appendix D to be amended as follows (add/remove):

EN-1 Overarching Energy

EN-1 Section Para no. Requirement as Stated in NPS

Compliance and Comment Related to the FRAs



78




ES VOLUME 5.23.2 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT SOUTH OF THE MENDIP HILLS CABLE SEALING END COMPOUND

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.23.2 South of the Mendip Hills Cable Sealing End Compound FRA









ES Volume 5.23.2, paragraph 5.3.12 to be amended as follows (add/remove): General clarification


79


“From the perspective of this FRA, the critical operating mode in terms of the highest flood levels is Option 2 with Bleadon Sluice closed. The largest flood event modelled is the 1 in 100 (1%) annual probability event, and the same event plus climate change. For this FRA design levels are required for the 1 in 200 (0.5%) and 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability events. A plot of the modelled flood levels from the AXE035 model node is shown in Inset 5.2. This plot shows a straight line within the modelled range. To estimate the water levels in more extreme events this data is extrapolated, indicating that the flood levels for the 1 in 200 (0.5%) and 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability events are around 6.05mAOD and 6.22mAOD respectively. Whilst the linear extrapolation of the modelled levels to the 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) annual probability event (on a logarithmic scale) has some uncertainty associated with it, in the absence of specific modelled event data, this is a reasonable assumption.”



“During the recent 2013/2014 winter flooding on some parts of the Somerset Levels and Moors, the proposed CSE compound site was not affected by fluvial flooding.

No evidence was identified that indicated the area in close proximity to the proposed CSE compound was affected by fluvial flooding during the 2013/14 winter floods.”


ES Volume 5.23.2, Appendix D

ES Volume 5.23.2, Appendix D to be amended as follows (add/remove):






80




ES VOLUME 5.23.3 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT SANDFORD SUBSTATION

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.23.3 Sandford Substation FRA








ES Volume 5.23.3, Appendix F

ES Volume 5.23.3, Appendix F to be amended as follows (add/remove): General clarification


81







ES VOLUME 5.23.4 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT SEABANK SUBSTATION

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.23.4 Seabank Substation FRA






The response to this question included four sketches which were included in Appendices 5.12.1.1, 5.12.2.1, 5.12.3.1 and 5.12.4.1 to the responses to the WQs. These sketches showed the levels that were quoted in



82


the four FRAs covering the two substations and the two cable sealing end compounds.



“The design of the flood defence wall with a defence height of 8.05mAOD would also allow for future raising depending on actual sea level rise and other (future) flood defences protecting the area. At detailed design stage, the feasibility of designing the foundations of the wall to accommodate a future higher crest level would be assessed. This is consistent with the precautionary principle such that the currently proposed works do not restrict future adaptation measures.”


ES Volume 5.23.4, Appendix E

ES Volume 5.23.4, Appendix E to be amended as follows (add/remove):







ES VOLUME 5.23.5 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT HINKLEY POINT C CONNECTION ROUTE

Updates to ES Volume 5.23.5 Hinkley Point C Connection Route Flood Risk Assessment


83


In response to a number of matters raised during examination, an updated Hinkley Point C Connection Route FRA has been produced as follows: o ES Volume 5.23.5.1A Flood Risk Assessment Hinkley Point C Connection Route. o ES Volume 5.23.5.2A Flood Risk Assessment Hinkley Point C Connection Route – Appendices.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.23.5 Hinkley Point C Connection Route FRA

ES Volume 5.30A, Annex I of this document (Replacement Hinkley point C Connection Route FRA Appendix I (National FRA Flood Modelling Extents).





ES Volume 5.23.5.1A, paragraph 7.7.6

ES Volume 5.23.5.1A, paragraph 7.7.6 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

Volume 5.23.5.2.2A, Appendix I shows the flood outline for Main Rivers and the sea with flood defences in place for the 1 in 30 (3.3%) annual probability event. For comparison, it also shows the Flood Zone 3 outline, which represents the 1 in 100 (1%) annual probability fluvial flood event or the 1 in 200 (0.5%) annual probability tidal flood event.


ES Volume 5.23.5.2.2A, Appendix I

ES Volume 5.23.5.2.2A, Appendix I comprises a series of 27 maps showing the flood risk along the entire route based on Environment Agency flood mapping with flood defences in place. This complete map series has been amended (see Annex I of this document) to show the areas considered to be at risk of flooding up to the 3.3% Annual Exceedance Probability (1 in 30 annual chance) event. In the previous version (January 2015) the mapping showed a higher level of flood risk.


ES VOLUME 5.24 STATEMENT OF STATUTORY NUISANCE

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.24 Statement of Statutory Nuisance


ES Volume 5.9 Ground Environment.


ES Volume 5.13 Air Quality and Emissions.

ES Volume 5.14 Noise and Vibration.



84




ES Volume 5.26.4C CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation. o Construction mitigation measures referenced in ES Volume 5.24 are superseded by those set out in ES Volume 5.26.4C.







ES VOLUME 5.25 OFF-SITE PLANTING AND ENHANCEMENT SCHEME

Updates to ES Volume 5.25 Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme

In response to a number of matters raised during examination, an updated Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme has been produced as follows: o ES Volume 5.25.1B Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme. o ES Volume 5.25.2B Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme - Appendices. o ES Volume 5.25.3B Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme - Figures.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.25 Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme



ES Volume 5.8 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation





ES Volume 5.26.1C CEMP.


85



ES Volume 5.26.4C CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.




ES VOLUME 5.26.1 CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.1 Construction Environmental Management Plan

The CEMP has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the CEMP is as follows: o ES Volume 5.26.1C CEMP.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.1 Construction Environmental Management Plan








ES Volume 5.22.4 Transport Assessment Addendum.

ES Volume 5.22.1A Transport Assessment (Update to Section 12).







ES Volume 5.24 Statement of Statutory Nuisance.






86




ES Volume 5.26.5C CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan.

ES Volume 5.26.6C CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan.

ES Volume 5.26.7B CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan.


ES Volume 5.33.1 Bird Mortality Monitoring and Thresholds South of Mark.


No further amendments required to ES Volume 5.26.1.

ES VOLUME 5.26.2 CEMP APPENDIX 1 - WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.2 CEMP Appendix 1 – Waste Management Plan

The Waste Management Plan has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the Waste Management Plan is as follows:

o ES Volume 5.26.2C CEMP Appendix 1 – Waste Management Plan.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.2 CEMP Appendix 1 – Waste Management Plan

ES Volume 5.3 Project Description.



ES Volume 5.17 Cumulative Effects.

ES Volume 5.19 Non-Technical Summary.










87



ES VOLUME 5.26.3 CEMP APPENDIX 2 - BIODIVERSITY MITIGATION STRATEGY

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.3 CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy

The Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy is as follows:

o ES Volume 5.26.3C CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.3 CEMP Appendix 2 – Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy



















ES Volume 5.28.1 – 5.28.3 Ecology Survey Update Report.






88


ES VOLUME 5.26.4 CEMP APPENDIX 3 – ARCHAEOLOGICAL WRITTEN SCHEME OF INVESTIGATION

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.4 CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation

The Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation is as follows:

o ES Volume 5.26.4C CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.4 CEMP Appendix 3 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation


ES Volume 5.30A, Annex H of this document (Replacement Heritage Asset Plans).











ES VOLUME 5.26.5 CEMP APPENDIX 4 - CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.5 CEMP Appendix 4 - Construction Traffic Management Plan

The Construction Traffic Management Plan has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the Construction Traffic Management Plan is as follows:

o ES Volume 5.26.5C CEMP Appendix 4 – Construction Traffic Management Plan.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.5 CEMP Appendix 4 - Construction Traffic Management Plan




89





ES Volume 5.15 Socio-economics and Land Use.














ES VOLUME 5.26.6 CEMP APPENDIX 5 - PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY MANAGEMENT PLAN

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.6 CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan

The Public Rights of Way Management Plan has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the Public Rights of Way Management Plan is as follows:

o ES Volume 5.26.6C CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.6 CEMP Appendix 5 – Public Rights of Way Management Plan









90










ES VOLUME 5.26.7 CEMP APPENDIX 6 - NOISE AND VIBRATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Updates to ES Volume 5.26.7 CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan

The Noise and Vibration Management Plan has been updated to reflect various issues discussed during examination. The final version of the Noise and Vibration Management Plan is as follows:

o ES Volume 5.26.7B CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.26.7 CEMP Appendix 6 – Noise and Vibration Management Plan










ES VOLUME 5.27 SCHEDULE OF OPERATIONAL MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT MEASURES

Updates to ES Volume 5.27 Schedule of Operational and Mitigation and Enhancement Measures

This document is superseded by ES Volume 5.32B (Overarching Mitigation Annex).


91


ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT – NEW DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO PINS DURING EXAMINATION

ES VOLUME 5.28 ECOLOGY SURVEY UPDATE

Purpose of Document

In response to s51 advice, the ecology survey update documentation (ES Volume 5.28.1 – 5.28.3) presents the additional ecological survey data from 2014 to augment the 2013 results already published in the Biodiversity and Nature Conservation chapter of the ES (Volume 5.8.1 of the submitted ES).

ES Volume 5.28.1 – 5.28.3 also considers whether there are any changes to the assessment described in the Applicant’s Report to Support Habitats Regulations Assessment (ES Volume 5.20).

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.28 Ecology Survey Update


ES Volume 5.11 Habitats Regulations Assessment Report.




ES VOLUME 5.29 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SENSITIVITY TEST

Purpose of Document

National Grid received an application from EdF Energy for a modification to the connection date for the Hinkley Point C Power Station that seeks a connection two years later than the connection date described in the submitted DCO application.

As a result, on 19 August 2014, a formal offer for a revised connection date was made by National Grid to EdF Energy.

To meet the revised connection date offered, the construction programme as originally presented in the submitted ES has been revised.

ES Volume 5.29.1 – 5.29.2 considers whether there are any changes to the environmental effects described in the submitted ES as a result of the revised construction programme.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.29 ES Sensitivity Test

ES Volumes 5.2 – 5.3, 5.6 – 5.17 and 5.19 (ES Chapters ‘Project Need and Alternatives’. ‘Project Description’ and Topic Chapters).





92







ES Volume 5.29.1.1: Table ES 1.6.1, Table ES 1.6.2, paragraphs 3.5.3, 3.5.8, 6.5.17, 6.7.5, 7.5.18, 7.7.5, 8.5.8, 8.5.23, 8.5.48, 8.5.76, 19.6.11, 19.7.10 and 19.8.8

ES Volume 5.29.2.1: paragraphs 2.3.4, 2.3.6, and 5.2.3

ES Volume 5.29.2.2.1, paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.8

ES Volume 5.29.2.3 paragraph 2.5.4


As detailed in the ES Sensitivity Test (ES Volume 5.29), the Revised Construction Programme would result in an increased duration of works to install the 400kV underground cables through the Mendip Hills. To avoid prolonged loss of all hedgerows and grassland habitats throughout the entire 8.5km length of 400kV underground cables the works would be delivered in a phased manner under the Revised Construction Programme. However the ES Sensitivity Test states that works through the Mendip Hills would be phased with the active working area limited to a maximum 3km length at any one time.

In light of additional construction information now available to National Grid, reference to the phasing of the 400kV underground cable works through the Mendips Hills is amended throughout the ES Sensitivity Test.

Accordingly text relating to a maximum working length of 3km is removed and amended as follows (add/remove):

“Removal and reinstatement of hedgerows and grassland will be phased to ensure no more than four sections of the 400kV underground cable route will be soil stripped at any one time. The start and end of a section is denoted by the junction bays; the distance between junction bays is largely determined by the length of cable (per cable drum) available on the market. The cable length (per cable drum) is currently anticipated to be between 0.7km and 1.0km and will be confirmed once a cable manufacturer is commissioned. Each section is envisaged to take approximately 70 days to complete the excavation, installation and ground reinstatement elements.”

This amendment does not change the findings of the ES Sensitivity Test. The text relating to the phasing of the works through the Mendip Hills is set out in the revised Biodiversity Mitigation Strategy (ES Volume 5.26.3A).


ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Table 1.6.1

Page 17, Row ‘Volume 5.7’ to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 7A:Section A: Visual Assessment Tables - Issue B ES Sensitivity Test

Clarification in response to first round written questions16.8 (Volume


93


Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 7C: Section C: Visual Assessment Tables - Issue B ES Sensitivity Test

Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 7D:Section D: Visual Assessment Tables - Issue B ES Sensitivity Test

Volume 5.29.21.3, Figure 7.35.6 37.1: Sandford Substation – Landscape Mitigation Phasing Plan- Issue A ES Sensitivity Test”.

8.1.3)



“The assessment of the residual effects remains unchanged from that presented in the submitted ES as a result of the Revised Construction Programme”

Clarification in response to first round written questions16.8 (Volume 8.1.3)



“The assessment of residual effects remains unchanged from that presented in the submitted ES.”




“The assessment of the residual effects of construction noise and vibration remain unchanged from that presented in the submitted ES”.




“The assessment of the effects remains unchanged from that presented in the submitted ES as a result of the Revised Construction Programme. The Revised Construction Programme has no material effect on the residual impacts set out in the submitted ES”




Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 15G: Planning Allocations within Local Area of Influence – Issue B ES Sensitivity Test

Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 15H: Planning Permissions within Local Area of Influence – Issue B ES Sensitivity Test

Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 15J: Amenity Assessment – Issue B ES Sensitivity Test




“The assessment of the residual effects remains unchanged from that presented in the submitted ES.”

Clarification in response to first round written questions16.8 (Volume


94


8.1.3)


ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Table 3.2 (Temporary Construction Compounds) to be replaced with ES Volume 5.26.1C, Annex A (Construction Compounds Schedule).



Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 3B

Volume 5.29.2.2.1, Table 4.2

ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Table 3.2; ES Volume 5.29.1.2, Appendix 3B; and ES Volume 5.29.2.2.1, Table 4.2 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

Table 3.2 Proposed Development (Revised) Construction Compounds

Compound Name Local Authority Proposed Development Component

Anticipated Revised Start Date

8: Sandford Substation North Somerset Council Sandford March 20176

10: Churchill North Somerset Council Churchill (W&YRoute) January 2017

11: Engine Lane North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017

12: Nailsea North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017

13: Church Lane North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017

14: Clevedon Road North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017

15: Whitehouse Lane North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017

16:Caswell Hill North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017

17: Sheepway North Somerset Council W Route underground cables March 2018

April 2017



95


18: BW Route (west) North Somerset Council BW Route April October 2018

19: BW Route (east) North Somerset Council BW Route April 2018

February 2019

21: Kings Weston Lane Bristol City Council G Route June 2018 July 2019

22: G Route (east of M49)

Bristol City Council G Route underground cables June 2018 July 2019

23: Seabank (Severn Road)

Bristol City Council Seabank October 2019

December 2015

Revised Table 3.2 (in its entirety) is provided at Annex J of this document. Please note that furtehr details regarding construction compounds is subsequently provided at ES Volume 5.26.1C, Annex A (Construction Compounds Schedule).

The amended revised construction compound start dates set out above still fall within the Revised Construction Programme for the relevant Proposed Development component assessed within the ES Sensitivity Test (and detailed at ES Volume 5.29.1.1, Table 3.1). Accordingly the amendments to Table 3.2 do not change the findings of the ES Sensitivity Test (ES Volume 5.29).



“The number, size and form of watercourse crossings remain as described in the submitted ES as a result of the Revised Construction Programme. The sole change is that crossings along the construction accesses will remain in place for up to 76 months rather than the four years assessed in the submitted ES. Potential effects associated with installation and removal of all watercourse crossings remain as previously described, as does the re-establishment of bank and in-channel vegetation which is anticipated within 2-4 years (24-48 months).”

Typographical error


ES Volume 5.29.1.1, paragraph 8.5.81, the final bullet point has no additional text thereafter and should be deleted.

Typographical error


ES Volume 5.29.1.1, paragraph 8.5.81 the final bullet point has no additional text thereafter and should be deleted.

Typographical error

ES Volume ES Volume 5.29.1.1, paragraph 12.7.5 to be amended as follows (add/remove): General clarification


96


5.29.1.1, paragraph 12.7.5

“As a result of the Revised Construction Programme a single additional junction, junction 44 (the M5/A4/Avonmouth Way), is predicted to operate above its practical capacity level. Accordingly, this junction will be added to the CTMP and DCO requirements. This is set out in the Construction Environmental Management Plan Sensitivity Test at Volume 5.29.2.4”.


Volume 5.29.1.1, paragraph 12.7.7 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“With the exception of the addition of junction 44 to the CTMP and DCO requirements, no further changes are required to the mitigation measures set out in the submitted ES (Volume 5.12.1) as a result of the Revised Construction Programme”.




“Additional junction capacity assessment has identified that as a result of the increases in background traffic associated with local development, one of the 16 junctions (the M5/A4/Avonmouth Way) is predicted to operate above its practical capacity as a result of the Revised Construction Programme. Therefore this junction will be subject to peak period vehicle restrictions to mitigate the cumulative impacts. However, there would be no significant changes in the cumulative effects detailed in the submitted ES (Volume 5.12.1) as a result of the Revised Construction Programme”.




“The junction (the M5/A4/Avonmouth Way) will be subject to the peak period HGV vehicles restrictions; these measures will be added to the CTMP and DCO requirements”.




“The exceptions to this is the are: Avonmouth Way and the Wick to Stalford Road. The construction traffic noise assessment at Avonmouth Way marginally increases in terms of assessed magnitude under the Revised Construction Programme, but remains of negligible significance. Accordingly, no further mitigation is required for this route as a result of the Revised Construction Programme”




“The Wick to Stalford Road increases from minor to moderate significance. The increase is due to the low level of existing traffic on this road during the peak year associated with the Revised Construction Programme. However, as the baseline traffic flows are low, the absolute noise levels will not exceed threshold noise levels, in terms of WHO guidelines for health and wellbeing or published amenity guidance, at receptors. Accordingly, no further mitigation is required for this route as a result of the Revised



97


Construction Programme.

“It should also be noted that the Wick to Stalford Road was originally proposed as one of two construction access routes for the Hinkley Line Modifications (Section H); the other route being Wick Moor Drove. Following discussions between National Grid and the Joint Councils as part of the Statement of Ground Common process, the Wick to Stalford Road is no longer proposed as a construction route. Road traffic noise impacts associated with the Revised Construction Programme on the Wick to Stalford Road will therefore be negligible.

All construction traffic for the Hinkley Line Modifications will instead utilise the proposed Wick Moor Drove construction route. The ES Sensitivity Test assessed a worst case at Wick Moor Drove on the basis that all construction traffic would access via this route. The road traffic noise impacts associated with the Revised Construction Programme on the Wick Moor Drove will remain as negligible”



“It is concluded that the Revised Construction Programme has no implications for the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of construction noise set out in Chapter 14 of the submitted ES (Volume 5.14.1). with the exception of the proposed construction route along the Wick to Stalford Road which increases from negligible to moderate significance. However, this increase is due to the low baseline traffic flows along this route during the peak year and absolute levels will not exceed threshold noise levels, in terms of WHO guidelines for health and wellbeing or published amenity guidance, at receptors. Accordingly no further mitigation measures are required as a result of the Revised Construction Programme.”




“It is concluded that the Revised Construction Programme does not change the assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of construction noise set out in Chapter 14 of the submitted ES (Volume 5.14.1). , with the exception of the proposed construction route along the Wick to Stalford Road which increases from negligible to moderate significance. However, this increase is due to the low baseline traffic flows along this route during the peak year and absolute levels will not exceed threshold noise levels, in terms of WHO guidelines for health and wellbeing or published amenity guidance, at receptors. Accordingly no further mitigation measures are required as a result of the Revised Construction Programme.”



ES Sensitivity Test Volume 5.29.1.1, Table 17.2 provides an assessment of the potential cumulative construction effects for project ID115 and the Proposed Development but operational effects were not reported in Table 17.2. Due to the small scale nature of project ID115, operational effects would be similar to that presented for construction effects and therefore cumulative significance of effect would be the same and the conclusions made in the ES Sensitivity Test (ES Volume 5.29.1.1) do not change.

General Clarification in response to first round written question 9.41(Volume 8.1.2)


98


ES Volume 5.29.2.2.1, paragraph 10.7.3

ES Volume 5.29.2.2.1, paragraph 10.7.3 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“These graphs have been reproduced based on the Revised Construction Programme and are contained within Appendix C (Volume 5.29.2.2.2). Further to these, Table 10.7 below represents the peak daily two-way traffic generation occurring at each junction and also shows the duration of that peak in the assessment year of the junction. It should be noted the daily peak could occur on single day or multiple days within a week. The junction names are provided in Appendix B of this document (Volume 5.29.2.2.2). This table has been produced to provide additional information to that which is contained within the submitted TA (Volume 5.22). Table 10.3 of the submitted TA (Volume 5.22) provides peak daily two-way traffic generation by vehicle type by group. At the request of the LHAs LPAs, this information has been provided by junction”.




“The table shows the peak daily two-way traffic generation by vehicle type, per junction in their respective years of assessment as a result of the Revised Construction Programme. The total peak two-way flows indicated in the table are not necessarily the sum of the peak light, medium and heavy flows indicated but the highest combination of all three vehicle types occurring on the same day. For example, the total peak two-way traffic generation for junction 1 is 174 vehicles. This means that highest traffic generation associated at junction 1 would be 174 vehicles for a period of three weeks in 2021. This is not the sum of the individual peaks of light, medium and heavy movements (130+31+32) as these peaks would not occur on the same day as one another”.




“The mitigation set out in the accompanying Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (Volume 5.26.5) is proportionate to the potential impacts at the junction associated with the Revised Construction Programme. However, it is noted that the M5/A4/Avonmouth will be included within the CTMP junction list for restrictions of peak period HGV traffic from the Proposed Development as a result of the Revised Construction Programme.




“From the assessment contained herein, it is therefore concluded that, Revised Construction Programme, Junction 44 M5/A4/Avonmouth will also be added to the CTMP (Volume 5.26.5) and the DCO requirement. This is detailed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan at Volume 5.29.2.4 of the Sensitivity Test. AM and PM peak period HGV vehicle movement restrictions at this junction will mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Development Construction HGV vehicle movements under the Revised Construction Programme”.



99




Given that the predicted construction traffic within the Revised Construction Programme is equal to or less than that assessed as part of the of the submitted TA (Volume 5.22) it is considered that the impacts would be equal to the impacts of the Proposed Development as a result of the Revised Construction Programme. Accordingly the mitigation measure capacity assessment, requested by the LHAs LPAs and described at paragraph 1.1.7 has not been undertaken as part of the assessment of the Revised Construction Programme.




“In light of the modifications to the connection date and the Revised Construction Programme required, a sensitivity test of the submitted Draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Volume 5.28 Volume 5.26 of the submitted ES) produced to accompany the DCO application has been undertaken. The purpose of the sensitivity test is to determine if any changes are required to the submitted CEMP as a result of the Revised Construction Programme. “

Typographical error

ES VOLUME 5.30 CLARIFICATION NOTE/CONSOLIDATED ERRATA AND CHANGES DOCUMENT (THIS DOCUMENT)

Purpose of Document

The initial ES Clarification Note (ES Volume 5.30) was produced to document ES amendments and statements of clarification during the Statement of Common Ground discussions as well as other minor amendments and general points of clarification.

Updates to ES Volume 5.30 Clarification Note/Consolidated Errata and Changes Document

The Clarification Note has been updated (ES Volume 5.30A) and re-named the ‘Environmental Statement Consolidated Errata and Changes Document’. The reason for the update is that during the examination, further points of clarification have arisen through tasks such as (but not limited to) the Written Questions, Written Representations and the Issue Specific Hearings as follows:

o ES errors and omissions have been identified (Table 1.2 of this document). o National Grid has been asked to provide further details, interpretation or clarifications to ES assessments previously provided to PINS. These

are described in brief (Table 1.2 of this document) with a cross reference to the submission document where relevant. o Since submission of the ES to PINS in May 2014, National Grid has prepared updates to some of the ES documents and also prepared new ES

documents to be read in tandem with the initial and updated ES. These documents have been submitted to PINS throughout the examination process and are detailed at Table 1.1 of this document. Where these new ES documents would result in amendments to the original ES (for example ES Volume 5.28 (ES Ecology Survey Update Report) would result in an update to the ecological baseline data in ES Volume 5.8.1), these are set out in this table - Table 1.2 of this document.

ES VOLUME 5.31 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WESSEX WATER REALIGNMENT


100


Purpose of Document

During discussions with Wessex Water (a Statutory Undertaker operating in the vicinity of the Proposed Development), it was noted that the Proposed Development would make the future maintenance of the recently extended Wessex Water site impossible. As a result, National Grid put forward a minor realignment of the proposed 400kV overhead line between pylons LD120 and LD122.

St Anthony’s Park gypsy and travellers’ site is identified as a new receptor in ES Volume 5.31. The site is identified in the South Gloucestershire and Bristol – Gypsy, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (January 2014) as a transit site providing 20 pitches, with an additional 20 emergency stopping place pitches. Throughout the ES survey period this site has not been occupied, and was not identified as a receptor requiring consideration during the pre-submission discussions with Bristol City Council. St Anthony’s Park was not identified as a receptor in the ES. However during a site visit undertaken in September 2014 a number of travellers were using the site. This has led to the site’s inclusion as a receptor in this assessment.

ES Volume 5.31 describes any changes to the assessments reported in the submitted ES as a result of the proposed minor realignment of the proposed 400kV overhead line.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.31 Environmental Statement Wessex Water Realignment

ES Volume 5.3 Project Description.








ES Volume 5.18 Photomontages.


ES Volume 8.7.4 Updated Verified Photomontages (Part 1 – Part 4).


ES Volume 5.31, paragraph 7.2

ES Volume 5.31, paragraph 7.2 to be amended as follows (add/remove):

“St Anthony’s Park is approximately 131m 75m south east of the proposed Pylon LD120. The construction and decommissioning noise effects of the Proposed Development are assessed as having a minor adverse significance of effect at the St Anthony’s Park. Although this new receptor was not considered in the ES, it is considered that the significance of effect of the alignment originally assessed in the ES would also be minor adverse during construction and there would be no change to the assessment presented in the ES”.



101


ES VOLUME 5.32 OVERARCHING MITIGATION ANNEX

Purpose of Document

The initial Overarching Mitigation Annex (ES Volume 5.32) provides a summary of all construction, operation and decommissioning mitigation measures and enhancement measures proposed as a result of the Proposed Development.

Updates to ES Volume 5.32 Overarching Mitigation Annex

The Overarching Mitigation Annex has been updated (ES Volume 5.32B) to reflect updates to mitigation and enhancement measures as a result of discussions during the examination.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.32 Overarching Mitigation Annex

















ES Volume 5.25 Off-site Planting and Enhancement Scheme.








102







ES VOLUME 5.33.1 BIRD MORTALITY MONITORING AND THRESHOLDS SOUTH OF MARK

Purpose of Document

ES Volume 5.33.1 provides details of the bird collision monitoring strategy (including proposed thresholds). The thresholds specify the numbers of bird collisions of each key species, that if reached would trigger further action to reduce bird collision mortality to an acceptable level. This further action in the first instance may involve further investigatory work, or may involve implementation of further mitigation such as installation of bird flight diverters.

ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.33.1 Bird Mortality Monitoring and Thresholds South of Mark


ES Volume 5.20 Habitats Regulations Assessment Report.





ES VOLUME 5.34 ES NOTE ON INCREASED PYLON HEIGHT WITHIN BRISTOL PORT, AVONMOUTH

Purpose of Document

National Grid has notified PINS that it requests that the Examining Authority appointed to examine the Application consider the possibility of an increase in height of the proposed 400kV lattice pylons LD109 to LD113 over the Bristol Port land in Avonmouth, Bristol City. The purpose of assessing the proposed increase in the height of the pylons is in order to achieve the 20.7m clearance beneath the proposed overhead line which the Bristol Port Company has requested.

The purpose of ES Volume 5.34.1 is to set out the findings of an assessment as to whether the proposed change in height to pylons LD109 to LD113 would give rise to any new or materially different likely significant environmental effects to assessed and reported in the submitted ES. ES Volume 5.34.1 is supported by ES Volume 5.34.3 (ES Amended Design Drawing).


103


ES Documents relevant to ES Volume 5.34 ES Note on Increased Pylon Height within Bristol Port, Avonmouth

ES Volume 5.3 Project Description











“The proposed change in the height of pylons LD110 and LD111 would result in five two trees (ID 443, 446, 450 & 456 & 475) no longer being required to be felled. Instead one tree (ID450) would require ‘No Action’ and one tree (ID456) would be being managed by pruning. This would be a beneficial effect.”

Clarification of tree removal, following third party action.


104